Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

There are a lot of “solos” sung by our Protestant brethren: Sola Fide (saved by faith alone), Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the rule of faith), and sola gratia (grace alone). (See the Protestant logo to the right.) Generally, one ought to be suspicious and careful of claims that things work “alone.” It is our usual experience that many things work together in harmony, that things are interrelated. Very seldom is anyone or anything “alone.”

The problem of the “solos” emerges (it seems to me) in our minds, where it is possible to separate things out. But the fact is, just because we can separate something out in our mind does not mean that we can separate it out in reality.

Consider, for a moment, a candle flame. In my mind, I can separate the heat of the flame from its light. But in reality, I could never take a knife and put the heat over on one side and the light on the other. In reality, the heat and light are inseparable, so together as to be one.

I would like to argue respectfully that it is the same with things like faith and works, grace and transformation, Scripture and the Church. We can separate all these things out in our mind, but in reality they are one. Attempts to separate them from what they belong to, lead to grave distortions and to the thing in question no longer being what it is claimed to be. Rather, it becomes an abstraction that exists only on a blackboard or in the mind of a (geeky) theologian.

Let’s look at the three main “solos” of Protestant theology. I am aware that there are non-Catholic readers of this blog, so please understand that my objections are made with respect. I am also aware that in a short blog I may oversimplify, and thus I welcome additions, clarifications, etc. in the comments.

Solo 1: Faith alone (sola fide). For 400 years, Catholics and Protestants have debated the question of faith and works. In this matter, we must each avoid a caricature of the other’s positions. Catholics do not and never have taught that we were saved by works. For heaven’s sake we baptize infants! We fought off the Pelagians. But neither do Protestants mean by “faith” a purely intellectual acceptance of the existence of God, as many Catholics think they do.

But what concerns us here is the detachment of faith from works that the phrase “Faith alone” implies. So let me ask, what is faith without works? Can you point to it? Is it visible? Introduce me to someone who has real faith but no works. I don’t think one can be found. About the only example I can think of is a baptized infant! But, oops, that’s a Catholic thing, since most Baptists and Evangelicals who sing the solos reject infant baptism.

Hence it seems that faith alone is something of an abstraction. Faith is something that we can separate from works only in our minds, but not in reality. If faith is a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ, it seems we cannot remain unchanged by entering into that relationship with him. This change affects our behavior, our works. Even in the case of infants, it is possible to argue that they are changed and do have “works,” it’s just that we cannot easily observe them.

Scripture affirms that faith is never alone, that such a concept is an abstraction. Faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Faith without works is not really faith at all since faith does not exist by itself, but is always present with and causes works through love. Galatians 5:6 says, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. Hence faith works not alone, but through love. Further, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

Hence faith alone is the null set. True faith is never alone; it bears the fruit of love and the works of holiness. Faith ignites love and works through it. Beware of the solo  “faith alone” and ask where faith, all by itself, can be found.

Solo 2: Grace alone (sola gratia). As for grace alone, this too is a puzzle, since grace by its very nature changes us. Again, show me grace apart from works. Grace without works is an abstraction. Grace cannot be found apart from its effects. In our mind it may exist as an idea, but in reality grace is never alone.

Grace builds on nature and transforms it. It engages the person who responds to its urges and gifts. If grace is real, it will have its effects and cannot be found alone or apart from works. It cannot be found apart from a real flesh-and-blood human who is manifesting its effects.

Solo 3: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) – Finally, beware those who say, “sola Scriptura”! This is the claim that Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian, that there is no need for a Church and no authority in the Church, that there is only authority in the Scripture. There are several problems with this.

First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th century. And it was Catholic bishops, in union with the Pope, who made the decision as to which books belonged in the Bible. The early Christians could not possibly have lived by sola scriptura since the Scriptures were not even fully written in the earliest years. And though collected and largely completed in written form by 100 AD, the set of books and letters that actually made up the New Testament was only agreed upon by the 4th Century.

Second, until recently most people could not read. Given this, it seems kind of strange that God would make, as the sole rule of faith, a book that people had to read on their own. Even today, large numbers of people in the world cannot read well. Hence Scripture was not a read text per se, but rather one that most people heard and experienced in and with the Church through her preaching, liturgy, art, architecture, stained glass, passion plays, and so forth.

Third, and most important, if all you have is a book, then that book needs to be interpreted accurately. Without a valid and recognized interpreter, the book can serve to divide more than to unite. Is this not the experience of Protestantism, which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners?

The problem is, if no one is Pope then everyone is Pope!  Protestant “soloists” claim that anyone, alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then, why does the Holy Spirit tell some people that baptism is necessary for salvation and others that it is not necessary? Why does the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ’s body and blood and others that it is only a symbol? Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants “Once saved, always saved” and to others, “No”?

So it seems clear that Scripture is not meant to be alone. Scripture itself says this in 2 Peter 3:16: our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, Our Brother Paul speaking of these things [the Last things] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Hence Scripture itself warns that it is quite possible to misinterpret Scripture.

Well then, where is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Hence, Scriptures are not to be read alone. They are a document of the Lord through the Church and must be read in the context of the Church and with the Church’s authoritative interpretation and Tradition. As this passage says, The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is a Church book and is not meant to be read apart from the Church that received the authority to publish it from God Himself.  Scripture is the most authoritative and precious document of the Church, but it emanates from the Church’s Tradition and must be understood in the light of it. Further, faith is not alone but works through love. And grace is not alone but builds on nature.

Thus the problems of “singing solo” seem to boil down to the fact that if we separate what God has joined, we end up with an abstraction, something that exists only in the mind (but in reality cannot be found alone).

Here is a brief video in which Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.

There is a great reverence for science in our culture. On the one hand, rightly so. Science has made enormous strides that have changed life as we know it. Profound discoveries have eradicated diseases, improved health, increased the world’s food supply, led to a computer revolution, drawn us higher into outer space and deeper into inner space, revealed hidden mysteries of nature, and produced technologies unimaginable to even our recent ancestors.

On the other hand, the reverence of science has tipped perhaps too far in the direction of a religious substitute. Indeed it is arguable that the robes of the priest, once admired and revered, have now been replaced in our culture’s esteem by the lab coat. Many regard the findings of science with an almost blind faith that many (often unfairly) attribute to religious believers. “Scientists say … ” has become a kind of mantra wherein all dissent must stop and a slight bow of the head might also be appropriate. The matter is settled since “scientists say … ” And while religious believers base their faith on some connection to unchanging Divine utterances, “believers” in science too often couch their belief on the utterances of mere human beings, learned to be sure, but fallible and subject to changing their theories (rightly) when new evidence comes in. Hence the sort of religious reverence that many today give to scientists is problematic, both for them and for science.

While many will deny they have such religious adherence or reverence, try questioning (not even outright disputing) a pet theory like Darwinian evolution or global warming and observe the religious fervor of their anger and their shock that you have the nerve to question “settled science” (read “dogma”). Rival thoughts must be scoured from the public schools and from newscasts with as much zeal as the Inquisition ever had (at least the inquisition involved an extensive questioning of dissenters)! Threats of legal action and ridicule, exclusion and defunding, boycotts and loss of professorships, follow the mere questioning of whether the scientific data really support such dogmatic conclusions.

I love science and have great respect for the scientific method, which is why the reactionary tactics of the last paragraph are so objectionable to me. True science should crave peer review and the challenges that help harden the data or refine the theories. New information is always coming in; there is no “settled science.” There are few if any permanent dogmas (other than to respect the data and method),  and a consensus achieved in this decade may melt away in the next (see photo top right – click to enlarge). Vive la différence!

Further, 100% of scientists are human beings. And it pertains to a certain percentage of any collection of human beings to be corrupt and to betray the very institutions they serve and the principles they uphold. The vast majority of scientists respect their discipline and the scientific method, but there are some who “fudge” the data and some who outright lie. Most of us remember the scandal (Climategate) related to the skewing of data at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. It was a huge blow to the science on this issue whatever your view of anthropogenic global warming.

Consider too another blow about the time of climategate, this time to anthropology, wherein significant and celebrated claims that the “missing link” between primates and man was being filled in, were found to be a hoax. Consider some excerpts from a column in The Guardian in which the debacle was described. These are excerpts; the full article is here: History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud.  My comments are in red text.

It appeared to be one of archaeology’s most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old – and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.  This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten – a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist – told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull. However, the professor’s 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age” relics.  Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous “falsehoods and manipulations.” According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man’s development will have to be rewritten. Notice, “entire tranche…rewritten.” 

“Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago,” said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. “Prof. Protsch’s work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish.” Again, notice, “completely revise … ” Parents, call your school board …

… a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world’s oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University’s radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too.  Another of the professor’s sensational finds, “Binshof-Speyer” woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while “Paderborn-Sande man” (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.

“It’s deeply embarrassing. Of course the university feels very bad about this,” Professor Ulrich Brandt, who led the investigation into Prof. Protsch’s activities, said yesterday. Prof. Protsch … had simply made things up … At the same time, German police began investigating the professor for fraud, following allegations that he had tried to sell the university’s 278 chimpanzee skulls for $70,000 to a US dealer.

The article goes on to describe three other frauds perpetrated this past century in the area of archeology.

OK, now let’s be fair (in a way that many critics of the Church are not). What this scientist has done is a betrayal of science. But the scientific method is not thereby repudiated. On the contrary, it is needed all the more! There are likely a lot of human layers to the hoax here (lack of proper peer review, too much human respect, ideological credence, and a lot of money in the mix). But again, the scientific method remains valuable and necessary. Had it been followed more carefully, this might not have happened. But scientists are men and woman, sinners, and mere mortals. In our fallen condition such things do happen.

And this is all I ask as a mere observer, a scientific amateur: that we remember that science is not a substitute for God or religious dogma. Science is useful and helpful, but it is not infallible; it is not settled; it is not perfect or pure. Scientists, like any group of humans, are affected by every human glory and every human vice. Yes, even among the “white lab coats” there are crooks, liars, the greedy, those enamored of fame, and ideologues obsessed with forcing a particular conclusion no matter what the data really say. But those who do such things betray science and undermine the work of many good scientists who work hard and follow the data and the method.

Many who criticize the Church are not so fair, insisting that the fact that a few priests and religious have betrayed the Church indicates that the Church and the Faith are bad. But despite bad priests and unfaithful members, the Church and the Faith are not thereby repudiated. They are needed all the more! Had the Faith been followed more carefully, the evils might not have happened.

The few who stray, whether in science or faith, are countersigns to what the reality should be. The Church, faith, and science should be accorded due respect, even when some leaders from their number betray their very principles. It is popular to point to the failings of the Church, but less popular (in fact downright unpopular) to point to the failings of science. But yes, dear reader, even some scientists stray, and “objective” science is not without sinners in its ranks too, no matter what the “white lab coats” might lead you to think.

Rebuke all betrayals, but respect what is good and true.

Here’s a humorous commercial about learning from the experience of others. It’s a kind of hat-tip to tradition and the scientific method all at once!

In the secular world, a “mystery” is something which baffles or eludes understanding, something which lies undisclosed. And the usual attitude of the world toward mystery is to solve it, to get to the bottom of it, or to uncover it. Mysteries must be overcome! The riddle or “whodunit” must be solved!

In the Christian and especially the Catholic world, “mystery” is something a bit different. Here, mystery refers to the fact that there are hidden dimensions in things, people, and situations that extend beyond their merely visible and physical dimensions.

One of the best definitions I have read of “mystery” is by the theologian and philosopher John Le Croix. Fr. Francis Martin introduced it to me some years ago in one of his recorded conferences. Le Croix says,

Mystery is that which opens temporality and gives it depth. It introduces a vertical dimension and makes of it a time of revelation, of unveiling.

Fr. Martin’s classic example of this to his students is the following:

Suppose you and I are at a party, and Smith comes in the door and goes straight away to Jones and warmly shakes his hand with both his hands. And I say, “Wow, look at that.” And you say, puzzled: “What’s the big deal, they shook hands … so what?” And then I tell you, “Smith and Jones have been enemies for thirty years.“

And thus there is a hidden and richer meaning than merely what meets the eye. This is mystery: something hidden, something that is accessible to those who know, who are initiated into the mystery and have come to grasp some dimension of it; it is the deeper reality of things.

In terms of faith, there is also a higher meaning that mystery brings. And thus Le Croix added above, It [mystery] introduces a vertical dimension, and makes of it a time of revelation, of unveiling.

Hence we come to appreciate something of God in all he does and has made. Creation is not just dumbly there. It has a deeper meaning and reality. It reveals its creator and the glory of Him who made it. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).

Indeed, there is a sacramentality to all creation. Nothing is simply and dumbly itself; it points beyond and above, to Him who made it. The physical is but a manifestation of something and Someone higher.

In the reductionist world in which we live, such thinking is increasingly lost. And thus we poke and prod in order to solve the mysteries before us. And when have largely discovered something’s physical properties, we think we have exhausted its meaning; we have not. In a disenchanted age, we need to rediscover the glory of enchantment, of mystery. There is more than meets the eye. Things are deeper, richer, and higher than we can ever fully imagine.

Scripture, which is a prophetic interpretation of reality, starts us on our great journey by initiating us into many of the mysteries of God and His creation. But even Scripture does not exhaust the mystery of all things; it merely sets us on the journey ever deeper, ever higher. Mysteries unfold; they are not crudely solved.

For the Christian, then, mystery is not something to be solved or overcome so much as to be appreciated and reverenced. To every person we know and everything we encounter goes up the cry, O magnum et admirabile mysterium (O great and wondrous mystery)! Now you’re becoming a mystic.

Here is Fr. Francis Martin speaking briefly on mystery:

One of the most overused terms in modern speech is the word “absolutely.” As in, “Do you want some gravy with those potatoes?” “Absolutely!” Or, “Would you agree that solution ‘X’ is the best solution to problem ‘Y’?”  “Absolutely!” What to call this … an expression? A semantic substitution for “yes?” A logism? A hyperbole? A grandiloquence? A periphrasis? Why this obsession with saying “absolutely” or its strange step-sister, “exactly”?

It is a strange paradox that in an age of relativism, an age that emphasizes personal opinion and subjective feelings over objective truth, so many people substitute for “yes” words like “absolutely,” “exactly,” “precisely,” “positively,” and so forth.

Perhaps we subconsciously seek certainty in an age of uncertainty. Or perhaps, in an age of hypersensitivity, we seek to overemphasize to people that we are “100% on board” with what they have said.

And now you may ask, “Why do you keep saying ‘perhaps’? Are you indicating a lack of certainty in your conclusion?” Absolutely! I have no idea why people use this word so much today. And NOW you ask, “Why do you say you have NO idea? Is it not really the case that you have some idea and that your saying ‘NO idea’ is reflective of the tendency for people to use hyperbole (exaggeration) for emphasis?” Yes! Absolutely! Exactly! So perhaps people are using “absolutely” merely as hyperbole.

Well, as you can see, we humans use a lot of rather excessive and categorical ways of speaking, even while at the same time using qualifiers such as “perhaps” and “sort of.” We are very strange. Which is really (or should I say perhaps) another way of saying that we are somewhat strange.

But, back to “absolutely.” Avoid saying this word for three reasons:

1. It’s getting annoying. I think it has surpassed “you know” and “like” on the annoyance meter. I want you to know that I never use any of these terms. 😉

2. You don’t really mean it. It’s more likely that you just mean “yes” or “I’m generally on board with what you said.” So say what you mean and own it.

3. Even for those of us who do not come from an “everything’s relative” mindset, affirming things “absolutely” is not usually recommended. There’s an old saying (playful in its own way), “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.” In other words, most statements, positions, views, rules, etc. admit of exceptions, need context, and/or require distinctions. Few things are “absolutely” the case. The road sign at the upper right is not absolutely true. If it were, there would be nothing to indicate, nothing to point at; there would be no next 22 miles at all.

Even commandments like “Thou shalt not kill” require some distinctions and context. Thus, in the commandment, “kill” is used more in the sense of “murder.” For in rare cases, one is able to kill as a last recourse if it is necessary to save one’s own life (self-defense) or the lives of others. Further, “killing” is often distinguished to mean premeditated, intentional killing (first degree murder) and other lesser degrees such as accidental killing due to irresponsibility (manslaughter), etc. So even if someone asks, “So would you agree with me that killing people is wrong?” it should not usually produce the answer, “Absolutely!” or “Exactly!”

Now, there ARE absolute moral norms such as “Never kill the innocent” and “Never blaspheme God.” But most things admit of exceptions (even if rare) and are not in fact “absolute.”

Does my correction seem dangerous to you? Of course it does. But we who live in an age of excessive relativism ought not overreact by insisting that more things are absolute than actually are, or that the only certainty is absolute certainty. Most rules, norms, and teachings do have exceptions and most of what we know has varying degrees of certainty. Most of us who have faith can be most certain about what God has definitively revealed. But even here, simply pulling a quote from the Bible or the Catechism is not enough. We need to understand a given truth or line from the Bible in the context of the whole of revealed truth, which sometimes qualifies, balances, or distinguishes it.

Many today who oppose the moral teachings of Scripture and the Church do this by reducing everything about the Lord to a “God is love” argument, as if the fact that He loves us means He would never say anything that might upset us. And thus one concept from Scripture is absolutized and read without understanding or referring to anything else. Yes, God is love, but He also loves us too much to lie to us. God loves us enough to tell us the truth and, if necessary, to hit us over the head with it.

The bottom line is, avoid saying “absolutely,” though I don’t mean this absolutely. Jesus gets the last word: Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one (Matt 5:37).

Can I get an “Absolutely!”?  err … I mean, can I get an “Amen!”?

One of the great illusions under which we labor is that if we just get one more thing from this world, then we’ll be happy. Perhaps if we just had a little more money, or a better job, or the latest iPad, or if we were married to so-and-so, or if we just lived in a better neighborhood … then we’d be satisfied and content at last. But “at last” never comes, even if we do get some of the things on our list. As Ecclesiastes puts it, The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Ecc 1:8). Or again, Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income (Ecc. 5:8).

Though we know this, somehow we continue to buy into the lie again and again: that just one more thing will do it. So we lay out the money and spend the time, but the delight lasts only twenty minutes, tops. The world just can’t close the deal.

There is a little preacher’s parable that illustrates the endless treadmill the world has us on, and shows how the world endlessly seduces us to want “just one more thing.” In the end, this seduction leads us to neglect the one thing most necessary. Here is the parable, followed by some commentary:

There was a man who was lonely and thought, perhaps, that buying a pet would help his loneliness. At the pet store he looked at many animals, and found himself drawn to one in particular. The sign over the cage said, “Talking Parrot: Guaranteed to talk!” “This will surely solve my problem,” thought the man, “For here is an animal that can even talk!”

“That’ll be $250,” said the merchant.

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder and talk?”
“Ladder? You didn’t tell me about a ladder!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot still isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder, look in the mirror, and talk?”
“Mirror? You didn’t tell me about a mirror!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot still isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder, look in the mirror, peck the bell, and talk?”
“Bell? You didn’t tell me about a bell!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot still isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder, look in the mirror, peck the bell, jump on the swing, and talk?”
“Swing? You didn’t tell me about a swing!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man came to the shop and the merchant asked, “How’s the parrot?”
“He’s dead!” said the man.
“Dead?” said the merchant … “Did he ever talk before he died?”
“Yes, he finally talked!” said the man.
“Well, what did he say?”
“He said, ‘Don’t they sell any birdseed at that store?'”

Lesson 1: Promises, Promises – And thus this parable teaches us in a humorous way that the world and the “prince of this world” are always promising results. Yet when those results are lacking, the practice is simply to demand more of the same. First the bird, then the ladder, then the bell, then the mirror, and then the swing. There’s always something more, and then the perfect result will surely come! This is a lie. The lie comes in many forms: just one more accessory, just go from the free to the paid version, just buy the upgrade to solve the difficulty, just one more drink, one more diet, a newer car, a bigger house, a facelift, bariatric surgery, etc. It’s always just one more thing and then you’ll make it; happiness is just past the next purchase.

Jesus, in speaking to the woman at the well, said of the water of that well (which represents the world), Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again (Jn 4:13). And that is the sober truth about this world: it cannot finally quench our thirst, which is a thirst for God and Heaven. But time and time again we go back to the world and listen to the same lie, thinking, “This time it’ll be different.”

Surely it is sensible that we make use of the things of this world insofar as they aid us to accomplish our basic duties. But they are not the answer to our deeper needs. The big lie is that they are the answer. And when they fail, the lie just gets bigger by declaring that just a little more of the failed product will surely close the deal. It’s a big lie and it gets bigger.

Lesson 2: The One Thing Most Necessary – In the pursuit of the ladders, mirrors, bells, and swings, the one thing most necessary was neglected: the food. And this is true for us, too. We seek to accumulate worldly toys and trinkets that pass away, and we neglect eternal and lasting realities. There is enough time for TV, sports, gossip, shopping … you name it. But prayer, Scripture, Sacraments, Liturgy, worship, and developing any kind of relationship with the Lord are most often neglected or even wholly forgotten in our pursuit of ladders, mirrors, bells, and swings. We are staring into the mirror focused too much on ourself. The bells of this world summon us to countless things, mostly trivial in the long run, and we are climbing the ladder of success with little care as to what wall it is leaning against.

And all of these less important matters divert us from the one thing necessary: to feed our souls on the Lord. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … the one who feeds on me will live because of me ... (Jn 6:56-58).

Ah, but no time for all that. Getting to Church, praying, receiving Communion? No time! I hear a bell summoning me to just one more diversion, one more meeting. I’m too busy climbing the ladder of success. I’m too busy looking at myself in the mirror to make sure I fit in and that everyone likes me.

Did [the parrot] ever talk before he died?”
“Yes, he finally talked!” said the man.
“Well, what did he say?”
“He said, ‘Don’t they sell any birdseed at that store?'”

Just a little parable on the lies of the devil and the false promises of this world.

Today’s feast of the Baptism of the Lord provides a moment to reflect not only on the Lord’s baptism, but also on our own. For in an extended sense, when Christ is baptized, so are we, for we are members of His body. As Christ enters the water, He makes holy the water that will baptize us. He enters the water and we follow. And in these waters He acquires gifts to give us, as we shall see below.

Why was Jesus baptized? It has been asked in every generation why Christ sought baptism. The baptism of John surely pointed to sin, of which Christ  had none. The question has been well answered by the Father and many others. In effect, Christ descended into those waters; He troubled those waters, stirring them up to make them holy for our sakes. And by this descent, which points to the Paschal mystery, obtained manifold blessings for us. St. Maximus of Turin speaks of Christ’s baptism this way:

I understand the mystery as this. The column of fire went before the sons of Israel through the Red Sea so that they could follow on their brave journey; the column went first through the waters to prepare a path for those who followed. … But Christ the Lord does all these things: in the column of fire He went through the sea before the sons of Israel; so now in the column of his body he goes through baptism before the Christian people. … At the time of the Exodus the column … made a pathway through the waters; now it strengthens the footsteps of faith in the bath of baptism (de sancta Epiphania 1.3).

So Christ, as it were, opens a way for us by troubling the waters, just as He did at the Red Sea,  and obtains for us victory over our spiritual enemies.  He brings us forth to freedom on the other side. He is baptized for us. Ephesians 5:30 says, we are members of Christ’s body. Thus when Jesus goes into the water, we go with Him. And in going there, He stirs up the water; He troubles the water for us, acquiring gifts on our behalf.

Don’t be afraid of troubled waters; there is a blessing on the other side. A songwriter once spoke of seeking a bridge over troubled waters. Biblically, this is poor advice. For it is only by going through, or wading into, the troubled waters that the blessing is found. More on this in a moment. For now, simply observe that Christ wades in, troubles the water, and obtains blessings for us out of the troubled waters.

And what are the gifts He obtains for us? The texts speak of them somewhat figuratively, but clearly. In effect, there are four gifts spoken of in the Gospel descriptions of Jesus’ baptism:

1. Access – the heavens are opened. The heavens and paradise had been closed to us after Original Sin. But now, at Jesus’ baptism, the text says that the heavens are opened. Jesus acquires the gift of sanctifying grace for us. And by this grace, the heavens open for us and we have access to the Father and to the heavenly places. Scripture says, Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand (Romans 5:1). It also says, For through Jesus we have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph 2:17). Hence the heavens are also opened at our own baptism and we have access to the Father.
2. Anointing – the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove. Here, too, Jesus acquires the gift of the Holy Spirit for us. In baptism, we are not just washed of sins, we also become temples of the Holy Spirit. After baptism, there is the anointing with chrism, which signifies the presence of the Holy Spirit. For adults, this is Confirmation. But even for infants, there is an anointing at baptism to recognize that the Spirit of God dwells in the baptized as in a temple. Scripture says, Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? (1 Cor 3:16)
3. Acknowledgment – this is my beloved Son. Jesus receives this acknowledgment from His Father. He allowed this to be heard by some of the bystanders for the sake of their own faith. But He also  acquires this gift for us. In our own baptism, we become the children of God. Since we become members of Christ’s body, we now have the status of sons of God. On the day of your baptism, the heavenly Father acknowledged you as His own dear Child. Scripture says, You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal 3:26).
4. Approval – I am well pleased. Jesus had always pleased His Father. But now He acquires this gift for you as well. Here, too, is another acknowledgment of the sanctifying grace that the Lord gives us in baptism. Sanctifying grace is the gift to be holy and pleasing to God. Scripture says, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in his sight (Eph 1:1-3).

Thus, at His baptism, Christ acquired these gifts for us, so that at the troubled, stirred up water of our own baptism, we could receive them. Consider well the glorious gift of your baptism. Perhaps you know the exact day. It should be a day as highly celebrated as your birthday. Christ is baptized for our sakes, not His own. All these gifts had always been His. Now, in His baptism, He fulfills God’s righteousness by going into the water to get them for you. It’s alright to say, “Hallelujah!”

This video I put together shows that God has a way of bringing blessings when He troubles the water.

He troubled the waters in the great flood to cleanse the earth,
He troubled the waters at the Red Sea to bring forth victorious escape and freedom from oppression,
He troubled the waters in the desert to satisfy the Israelites,
He troubled the waters of the Jordan so they could enter the promised land,
Jesus troubled the waters at His baptism and obtained many a gift for us,
And from the troubled waters of His pierced side came salvation and the Holy Spirit.

So don’t build a bridge over troubled waters; wade on in! There’s a blessing on the other side.

In the realm of liturgy there is often heard the voice of “historicists” who like to explain why something began in the liturgy historically. Usually their purpose for this is to say that it is silly to keep doing it today. But of course this logic is flawed, since even things that began for a practical reason usually take on additional meaning over time that ought not be discarded. Here are a few examples:

1. The ringing of the bells at the Sanctus, at the Hanc igitur, at the elevation of the host and chalice, and at the priest’s communion is said to have begun as a signal to the people, who were often not very engaged in what was going on “way up there at the high altar.” Maybe they were saying personal prayers or lighting candles. And thus, at important moments, the bells were rung to signal them that something important was about to happen. “Pay attention” was the meaning of the bells. And historicists today say, “Lose the bells,” since the people are deeply engaged now and have no need of signals. Of course they forget that the bells also came to indicate “the holy” and were not “just” a signal. Failing to ring them took away some of the aura of the holy, since bells were not “just” a signal.

2. It is said that incense was used mainly to cover up the bad smell of burning animal flesh in the Old Testament (it was not). And in churches of the New Testament era, where people did not bathe much (actually they bathed more than we think), body odor had to be covered up. Thus today many say, “Lose the incense,” since most people bathe and buildings are better ventilated. But again, they forget that incense is more than perfume; it is a symbol of prayer (cf Ps 141) and, once again, signifies the holy to God’s people.

3. It is said that the mixing of water with wine was an ancient practice since wine was “mixed” in those days. But today, wine is already filtered and mixed and we don’t need to mix it, so “Lose the ritual,” they say. But they do not understand that it has more significance than a mere practical gesture. For the prayer clearly indicates it is a symbol of our becoming one with Christ.

4. It is said that offertory processions were once a messy affair with all sorts of things being brought up in the procession such as crops, and even animals, the handling of which soiled the priest’s hands. Today only bread and wine are brought up so, “Lose the hand washing,” they say. But again the prayer goes beyond its practical roots (for which it is no longer needed) and speaks to a cleansing from sin that is still needed.

So you see that what once began as a practical measure often took on a spiritual meaning as well. A merely historicist understanding often neglects later developments.

Somehow I thought of this when I watched this video. It playfully posits that “half-time” in football games began with the chance appearance of a few beautiful women with some Pepsi-Cola. But whatever half-time’s “practical” origin really was, it has become a lot more since then, especially at the Superbowl and at college games, where entertainment is supplied and people (fans AND players) recharge and prepare for what is to come. It also introduces tension into close games and makes us wait for the outcome.

If it had a practical origin, it is part of the ritual now. Even if we ended up replacing the players with robots or virtual holographic players who need no rest, I suspect that half-time would still be part of the game. Why? Because most things never exist just for themselves, and neither do most things fully explain themselves. There’s always more to the story than mere practicality.

As it is for football, a fortiori the Mass. Every now and again it makes sense to let a few things fall away, but otherwise, may ritual remain reverently revered! There’s more to the story than mere practicality.

There is a common misunderstanding of the meaning of the Biblical phrase “the flesh.”  There are many references to “the flesh” in New Testament Scripture, especially in the letters of St. Paul. The phrase confuses some, who think it synonymous with the physical body or merely with sexual sin.

It is true that there are many times when Scripture uses the word “flesh” to refer to the physical body. However, when the definite article “the” is placed before the word “flesh” we are most often dealing with something else. Only very rarely does the Biblical phrase “the flesh” (ἡ σὰρξ (he sarx), in Greek) refer only to the physical body (e.g., John 6:53; Phil 3:2; 1 John 4:2); rather, it almost always refers to something quite distinct from merely the physical body.

What then is meant by the term “the flesh” (ἡ σὰρξ)? Perhaps most plainly it refers to the part of us that is alienated from God. It is the rebellious, unruly, obstinate part of our inner self that is operative all the time. It is the part of us that doesn’t want to be told what to do. It is stubborn, refuses correction, and doesn’t want to have a thing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It recoils at anything that might cause me to be diminished or to be something less than the center of the universe. The flesh hates to be under authority or to have to yield to anything other than its own wishes and desires. The flesh often desires something simply because it is forbidden.

The recent Protestant translations of the Bible (such as the NIV) often call the flesh our “sin nature,” which is all right unless the term “nature” is understood in the stricter philosophical sense. (For sin is not something that we should posit as coming from our nature, but rather as emerging more from our fallen condition, from the fact that our nature has been wounded.) In Catholic tradition, “the flesh” is where concupiscence sets up shop. Concupiscence refers to the strong inclination to sin that is in us as a result of the wound of Original Sin. If you do not think that your flesh is strong, just try to pray for five minutes and watch how quickly your mind wants to think of anything but God. Just try to fast or to be less selfish; then watch how quickly your flesh goes to war.

The flesh is in direct conflict with the spirit. “The spirit” here refers not to the Holy Spirit, but to the human spirit. The (human) spirit is the part of us that is open to God, that desires and is drawn to Him. It is the part of us that is attracted by goodness, beauty, and truth, the part that yearns for completion in God, the part that longs to see His face. Without the spirit, we would be totally turned in on ourselves and consumed by the flesh. Thankfully, our spirit, assisted by the Holy Spirit, draws us to desire what is best, upright, good, and helpful.

Perhaps it is good that we look at just a few texts that reference “the flesh” and thus learn more of the flesh and its ways. This will help us to be on our guard and to rebuke it (by God’s grace) and learn not to feed it. I make some comments in red following each quote.

1. The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings – [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).

Having heard Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, most of his listeners ridicule it and will no longer take Jesus seriously. So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh. The flesh demands that everything be obvious to it on its own terms. The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; it demands that it be able to “see” using its own unregenerate power. And if it cannot see based on its own limited view, it simply rejects spiritual truth out of hand. In effect, the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will “force” it to accept something. Absolute proof takes things out of the realm of faith and trust. Faith is no longer necessary when something is absolutely proven and plainly visible to the eyes of flesh. The flesh simply refuses to believe and demands proof.

2. The flesh is not willing to depend on anyone or anything outside its own power or control – For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. … I [now] consider this rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ (Phil 3:3-9 selected).

The flesh wants to be in control rather than to have to trust in God. Hence it sets up its own observance, under its own control. And when it has met its own demands it declares itself to be righteous. Since the flesh hates being told what to do, it takes God’s Law and makes it “manageable” based on the flesh’s own terms. So, for example, if I am supposed to love, let me limit it to my family and countrymen; but I am “allowed” to hate my enemy. But Jesus says, no, love your enemy. The flesh recoils at this, for unless the Law is manageable and within its own power to accomplish, the Law cannot be controlled. The flesh trusts only in its own power. The Pharisees were “self-righteous.” That is to say, they believed in a righteousness that they themselves brought about through the power of their own flesh. But the Law and flesh cannot save. Only Jesus Christ can save. The flesh refuses this and wants to control the outcome based on its own power and terms.

3. The Flesh hates to be told what to do – For when we were controlled by the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (Rom 7:5).

The disobedience and rebelliousness of the flesh roots us in sinful behavior and prideful attitudes. The prideful attitude of the flesh is even more dangerous than the sins that flow from the flesh, since pride precludes instruction in holiness and the possible repentance that leads to life. But the flesh does not like to be told what to do. Hence it rejects the testimony of the the Church, the Scriptures, and the conscience. Notice, according to the text, the very existence of God’s Law arouses the passions of the flesh. The fact that something is forbidden makes the flesh want it all the more! This strong inclination to sin is in the flesh and comes from pride and indignation at “being told what to do.” The flesh refuses God’s Law and sets up its own rules. The flesh will not be told what to do.

4. Flesh is as flesh does – Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6).

The flesh is intent on things of this world, upon gratifying its own passions and desires. On account of the flesh, we are concerned primarily with ourselves and seek to be at the center. The flesh is turned primarily inward. St. Augustine describes the human person in the flesh as “curvatus in se” (turned in upon himself). But the spirit is the part of us that looks outward toward God and opens us to the truth and holiness that God offers. Ultimately, the flesh is focused on death, for it is concerned with what is passing away: the body and the world. The human spirit is focused on life, for it focuses on God who is life and light.

5. The Flesh is intrinsically hostile to God – The mind of the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8).

The flesh is hostile to God because it is hostile to anyone more important than itself. Further, the flesh does not like being told what to do. Hence it despises authority or anyone who tries to tell it what to do. It cannot please God because it does not want to.

6. The Flesh abuses freedom – You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another in love (Gal 5:13).

The flesh turns God-given freedom into licentiousness. Licentiousness demands freedom without limit. Since the flesh does not want to be told what to do it demands to be able to do whatever it wants. In effect, the flesh says, “I will do what I want to do and I will decide if it is right or wrong.” This is licentiousness and it is an abuse of freedom. It results in indulgence and, paradoxically, leads to slavery to the senses and the passions.

7. The Flesh Demands to be fed – So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want (Gal 5:16-17).

Within the human person is this deep conflict between the flesh and the spirit. We must not be mistaken; the flesh is in us and it is strong. It has declared war on our spirit and on the Holy Spirit of God. When the spirit tries to obey, the flesh resists and tries to sabotage the best aspirations of the spirit. We must be sober about this conflict and understand that this is why we often do not do what we know is right. The flesh has to die and the spirit become more alive. What you feed, grows. If we feed the flesh it will grow. If we feed the spirit it will grow. What are you feeding? Are you sober about the power of the flesh? Do you and I feed our spirit well through God’s Word, Holy Communion, prayer, and the healing power of Confession? What are you feeding?

8. The Flesh fuels sin – The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-210).

This catalogue of sins that flow from the flesh is not exhaustive, but is representative of the offensive and obnoxious behavior that flows from the flesh. Be sober about the flesh; it produces ugly children.

9. The Flesh hates authority –  This [condemnation by God] is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority (2 Peter 2:10).

It’s clear enough: the flesh hates authority. And did I mention that the flesh does not want to be told what to do?

So here is a portrait of “the flesh.” It is ugly. You may say that I have exaggerated, that the flesh is not really this bad. I am not. Just buy a newspaper and read what the flesh is up to. You may, by God’s grace, have seen a diminishment in the power of the flesh in your life. That is ultimately what God can and will do for us. He will put the flesh to death in us and bring alive our spirit by the power of His Holy Spirit. But the first step is to appreciate what the flesh is and understand its moves. Step two is to bring this understanding to God through repentance. Step three is, by God’s grace, to stop feeding the flesh and start feeding the spirit with prayer, Scripture, Church teaching, Holy Communion, and Confession. Step four is to repeat steps one through three for the rest of our lives! God will cause the flesh to die and the spirit to live, by His grace at work in us through Jesus Christ.

There is no musical better at (humorously) depicting the flesh than Camelot. Here are a couple of video clips that depict well the flesh.

In this first video, Sir Lancelot ponders what a great and perfect guy he is. He even goes so far as to say, “Had I been made the partner of Eve we’d be in Eden still!”

In this second clip, the knights (in the flesh) ridicule goodness and sing, “Fie On Goodness!” It well illustrates the tendency of the flesh not only to indulge sin, but also to resist and ridicule what is good.