Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

The Biblical and Heavenly Roots of the Sacred Liturgy

Catholics are often unaware just how Biblical the Sacred Liturgy is. The design of our traditional churches, the use of candles, incense, golden vessels, the postures of standing and kneeling, the altar, the singing of hymns, priests wearing albs and so forth are all depicted in the Scriptures. Some of these details were features of the ancient Jewish Temple, but most all of these are reiterated in the Book of Revelation which describes the liturgy of heaven.

The liturgy here on earth is modeled after the liturgy in heaven and that is why it is so serious to tamper with it. The Book of  Revelation describes the heavenly liturgy and focuses on a scroll or book  which contains the meaning of life and the answers to all we seek. It also focuses the Lamb of God, standing but with the marks of slaughter upon it. Does this not sound familiar? It is the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

We do well to be aware of the Biblical roots of the Sacred Liturgy not only for our own edification but also as an answer to Protestant Christians who have largely set aside these rituals and, some of whom, criticize our use of them. Many people consider our rituals empty and vain, “smells and bells.” Some consider austere liturgical environments devoid of much ritual to be “purer,” and closer to the worship in “spirit and in truth” that Jesus spoke of in John 4.

To such criticisms we must insist that these rituals, properly understood, are mystical and deeply biblical. Further, they are elements of the heavenly liturgy since almost all of them are mentioned as aspects of the worship or liturgy that takes place in heaven. In this light it is a serious mistake to set them aside or have a dismissive attitude toward them.

With that in mind we ought to consider the Biblical references to the most common elements of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. I place an ocassional note in Red where it seems appropriate.

 Candles  –

  • Rev 1:12-13 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,  and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man. In traditional catholic parishes there are six candles on the high altar and a seventh candle is brought out when the bishop is present.
  • Rev 4:6 Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne.

Altar –

  • Rev 9:13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns of the golden altar that is before God.
  • Rev 8:3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.

Chair –

  • Rev 4:1 and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald….
  • Daniel 7:9  As I looked,  thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat;… In the sacred liturgy the Chair of the priest is prominent. But, as he takes his seat we are invited not to see Father Jones, but rather the Lord himself presiding in our midst.

Priests (elders) in Albs:

  • Rev 4:4 the elders sat, dressed in white garments…..

Bishop’s Miter, priest biretta –

  • Rev 4:4, 10 With golden crowns on their heads……they cast down their crowns before the throne…. In the Liturgy the Bishop may only wear his miter at prescribed times. But when he goes to the altar he must cast aside his miter. The priest who wears the biretta in the Old Mass is instructed to tip his biretta at the mention of the the Holy Name and to lay it aside entirely when he goes to the altar.  

Focus on a scroll (Book) The Liturgy of the Word –

  • Rev 5: 1 And I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals; and I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I wept much that no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. Then one of the elders said to me, “Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” In the ancient world books, as we know them now, had not been invented. Texts were written on long scrolls and rolled up.

Incense, Intercessory prayer –

  • Rev 8:3 another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God…..
  • Rev 5:7 and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

Hymns  –

  • Rev 5:8 – And they sang a new hymn: Worthy are you O Lord to receive the scroll and break open its seals. For you were slain and with your blood  you purchase for God men of every race and tongue, and those of every nation.
  • Rev 14:1 Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads… and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
  • Rev 15:3 And they (the multitude no one could count) sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and wonderful are thy deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are thy ways, O King of the ages!  Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, O Lord? For thou alone art holy. All nations shall come and worship thee,  for thy judgments have been revealed.”

Holy Holy Holy

  • Rev 4:8 and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,

Prostration (Kneeling) –

  • Rev 4:10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne. …
  • Rev 5:14 and the elders fell down and worshiped  – In today’s setting there is seldom room for everyone to lie, prostrate and  flat on the ground. Hence, kneeling developed as a practical solution to the lack of space but amounts to the same demenor of humble adoration.

Lamb of God –

  • Rev 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain,

Acclamations –

  • Rev 5:11  Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”

Amen!

  • Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!”.

Silence

  • Rev 8:1 When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. (and you thought your priest paused too long after communion?)

Mary –

  • Rev 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

Happy are those called to his “supper”

  • Revelation 19: 6Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty thunderpeals, crying,  “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.  Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;… And the angel said£ to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

Golden Vessels, vestments  –

  • Rev 1:12 – And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
  • Rev 1:13 – and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest
  • Rev 5:8 – the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense
  • Rev 8:3 – Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, at the golden altar before the throne.
  • Rev 15:16 – The angels were dressed in clean, shining linen and wore golden sashes around their chests.
  • Rev 15:17  seven golden bowls

Stained Glass –

  • Rev 21:10 [The heavenly city] had a great, high wall, with twelve gates,… The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. (The image of stained glass in our Church walls is hinted at here).

Here is but a partial list, drawn only from the Book of Revelation. I invite you to add to it.  You might also read The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn, and The Mass: A Biblical Prayer,by Fr. Peter Stravinskas.

Posted on

On Recovering a Wider Sense of Justice

There has been a tendency in the Church in recent decades to divide out the teachings of the Church into separate and often “competing”  realms. On the one hand there are said to be the basic moral teachings that include our duty to worship God, tell the truth, obey biblical sexual norms and the like. On the other hand there are said to be “social justice” teachings that include care for the poor, justice to the worker, the accused, the rightful distribution of resources, respect for racial equity and so forth. That social justice should have separated out into a category is problematic for at least two reasons.

  1.  All sin involves injustice for by it we fail to render to God, ourselves and/or others what is due. I will develop this in a moment.
  2.  The separation leads to entrenchment and isolation within the Church. Some who are more traditionally minded will tend to speak of those who emphasize the social doctrine of the Church as the “Peace and Justice Crowd” and are offended at their apparent “neglect” of pro-life issues or “fuzziness” on other doctrinal matters. Likewise, the recipients of that title can tend to see themselves as the last bastion of true prophecy and see traditional Catholics as selective in their faith.  So both sides have grievances and perceptions that also get mixed in with political viewpoints. The result is entrenched camps, rather  than the union which Christ seeks.

I want, then, to take a moment and address the first point particularly. At some level we have to see that all sin is injustice. For example, failing to care for the poor and fornication are both sins and both offend against justice. My ultimate hope is to chip away at the artificial wall separating so-called “justice” matters from other moral realms.

What is Justice?  Perhaps the most straight-forward definition of justice is to give to another what is due.  The Catechism elaborates this just a bit: Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. (CCC # 1807)

Hence it can be seen how every sin in some way offends against justice. To have idols, to use God’s name in vain or to swear falsely by it, to neglect to pray and worship God, especially on Sunday, is to fail to give God what is due. To refuse to give honor and respect to elders is to fail to give what is due. To refuse to obey lawful authority not only fails to give what is due to them but also offends against others, for it offends against good order. To kill or endanger the life of another is to fail to reverence their life as sacred, a debt which is due to everyone. To bear false witness or to lie is to fail in giving the truth which others are due and on which they depend. To steal is offend against justice by usurping for oneself what is NOT due and to fail to respect the lawful recognition of another’s rightful property. Many other sins and injustices stem from neglecting this command which are too numerous to detail here but on which I have written more here: The Forgotten Principle of Social Justice .  To covet or show forth greed is to hoard more than we rightfully need. To the poor and needy is due a care from our excess and to deprive them of this help so that we can hoard is to fail to give what is due.

Now, as a way of going into greater depth I would like to take the sixth commandment and sexual morality and look at how it relates to justice. I do this because I think, of all the sins, sexual morality is the most divorced from notions of justice when it is discussed. I want to explore for a moment how sexual immorality is a violation of justice as much, if not more, than any other sin.

Let’s take the fornicator for example. I am going to define fornicator here as one who willfully engages in pre-marital heterosexual activity. As we have discussed before “fornication” can mean other things but, for the sake of discussion, let’s limit it as I have suggested. How does the fornicator sin against justice?

  1. They sin against their own body which does not in fact belong to them. Hence a double injustice occurs. Scripture says, Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body (1 Cor 6:18). The Same passage also says of our bodies Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Cor 6:18). Hence the fornicator fails to give due reverence to their own body, and also fail to give due reverence to God whose temple the body is. Further to use something in a way that does not correspond to the wishes of the owner is a failure of justice. God has “purchased” our body and as owner is offended by fornication, to fail to respect his wishes is to fail to give him what is his due as the true owner of our body.
  2. The Fornicator is unjust to the married, and to all who depend on marriage by harming marriage. Sexual intercourse is a joy, a pleasure and a right given to married. In sharing a common pleasure accessible only by means of marriage the married couple is strengthened in mutual affection  and drawn to deeper unity. But when the unmarried start usurping the rights of the marriage bed they undermine an important motivator and unifying factor for marriage. Since this pleasure, meant to be restricted to the married state, is now commonly appropriated by the unmarried we see that marriage is in decline. High divorce rates are combined with declining marriage rates. When promiscuity is rampant marriage is harmed. Any study of current statistics on marriage will see how seriously marriage and family have been impacted by, among other things,  rampant promiscuity. Scripture speaks of promiscuity as a sin against justice due the institution of marriage: Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Heb 13:4). Hence reverence is due to marriage and to fail to give due reverence is a sin against justice and against the married and all who depend on its strength as an institution.
  3. Fornicators are unjust to those with whom they fornicate. They do this by tempting another to sin and by thus taking advantage of the weakness of another. We have a duty to protect one another from unnecessary and avoidable temptation. Others have a right to expect us to act in uprightness and truth toward them. To lust after another and exploit their weakness is an injustice toward them no matter how consenting they may seem. There is also the difficult to measure pain caused by broken hearts: those who have been used as sexual objects then discarded, those who have been betrayed, those who have paid a heavy price for their own transgressions. Scripture says: It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong another or take advantage. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you(1 Thess 4:1-6). Hence notice that the passage says we should not wrong another person by taking advantage of them in this matter.
  4.  The Fornicator sins against the wider community by helping set loose many social factors that tax the community or nation. Promiscuity brings venereal diseases, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, abortion, unwed mothers left to raise their children alone. To contribute to these negative social factors is unjust to others who must pay for the fornicator’s irresponsibility.
  5. The fornicator is unjust to Children.  The biggest losers in the explosion of promiscuity is children. Fornicators first  put children potentially at greater risk of abortion. Most fornicators claim that such is not the case since they use contraceptives (a sin in itself). But contraceptives routinely fail and it is demonstrable that higher rates of promiscuity have corresponded to higher rates of abortion. Hence fornication endangers the life of children. We have a duty to respect their lives and not endanger them. Secondly the fornicator sins against children by potentially and likely subjecting them to an irregular family situation: absent and/or irresponsible fathers, children unjustly deprived of a complete family, mothers raising children alone, strange visitation rules, etc. It is reported that the leading cause of poverty in this nation is single motherhood. We have already seen above how fornication and promiscuity have affected the divorce rate and this too harms children. Children are due something better than the poisonous climate which most of them have to inherit today. It is an injustice that we subject them to this. It is interesting that right after teaching against divorce in Mark 10, Jesus taught the disciples to let the little children come unto him and not hinder them. (cf  Mk 10:1-16)

Well, other things could be mentioned, but allow these to demonstrate how sexual morality is in fact a matter of justice. It is linked to questions of giving what is due, to matters of poverty and distribution of resources, to care of children, education and so forth.

It is important for us to reconnect matters than have often been divided out. This will assist both sides of this artificial division to speak a common language again.

That said, it is a true fact that some matters of sin and injustice are clearer than others. Whether or not to fornicate or have an abortion are pretty cut and dry. Either you do it or not and it is clearly identified as wrong. But how to best care for the poor is a matter over which reasonable people differ. Likewise, determining exactly what is due to the poor or exactly what is most just is not always certain. But that we should care for the poor is a matter of justice, the same justice that demands we reverence God, honor elders and those authority, not kill or endanger others lives, refrain from illicit sexual union, speak the truth, and not succumb to greed.

To be just is to give to God and others what is due. This is so across the board and is not a truth of only some of the commandments. The Church speaks a common language of justice that does not simply appeal to one side of the political debate or exist in one sector of the Church. God’s law is the expression of his justice and we are called to that justice in every aspect of life: Justice enhanced by charity and mercy.

This video series looks interesting and that Fr. Corapi may be trying break  down the artificial barriers too. Looks like a big crowd at the event!

Posted on

Four Demands of Discipleship: A Meditation on the Gospel of the 23rd Week of the Year

In today’s Gospel Jesus defines four Demands of discipleship. We can look at them one by one.

1.  The CONTEXT of the discipleship. The text says that large crowds were following Jesus and so he turned to address them. Just about any time you find a mention of a large crowd fasten your seat belts and prepare for a hard teaching. Jesus didn’t trust the big crowds who were often out for the goodies. They were looking for miracles, multiplied and free bread, physical healings and a fiery sermon. So upon sensing a large crowd the texts says, rather provocatively, that Jesus turned to address them. He then gives a series of “hard sayings” which seem almost designed to thin the ranks and to distinguish true disciples from the “lip service” crowd.

We will see in a moment what he says. But let’s take a moment and examine other incidents where the gospels demonstrate Jesus’ tendency to distrust big crowds:

  • Mat 7:13 Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
  • Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
  • Luke 6:26 Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

There is also the tendency in the gospels for the mentioning of a large crowd to be followed by a “hard saying:”

  • Matt 13:1-9 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear.”
  • Matt 19: 1-6 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (cf also Mark 10)
  • Luke 11:29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
  • Luke 14:26-27 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
  • Luke 12:54-56 He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?
  • John 6: 2 and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick….and He said to them, I am the living bread come down from heaven…..the crowds murmured.

So, the CONTEXT of discipleship is not usually with the crowd. Though many are called, indeed all are called, only few make the cut and become true disciples. There is a kind of remnant theology at work here, to be sure. But it is a common pattern that Jesus thins the ranks and distinguishes the many who are called from the few who are chosen. This is a fact not only in the Scriptures but it also remains true that the Lord has often had to prune his Church. Even now we are seeing a large falling away, a kind of pruning as large numbers depart who are not able to take the “hard sayings” of Jesus and the Scriptures about sexuality, forgiveness, love of one’s enemies, heroic charity and generosity, and so forth. The CONTEXT of discipleship is with the few, rather than the many.

2. The CENTRALITY of the discipleship. Jesus indicates that we can prefer or love no one more than him if we are going to be his disciples. This extends even to our family relationships: If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Now “hate” here does mean that we are to have contempt for others or nourish unrighteous anger toward them. What we are dealing with here is a Jewish idiom. The Hebrew language, for some reason, has very few comparative words such as: more, less, greater, fewer, and so forth. Hence in ancient Hebrew if one were to prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate one would say, “I love vanilla but hate chocolate.”  But what “hate” means here in context is that I “prefer” vanilla, not that I literally hate chocolate.

So, what Jesus means is that we cannot prefer anyone or anything to Him. He’s first, he’s number one. Jesus says, I must have absolute priority over the closest human relationships in your life. If there’s anyone in your life that can talk you out of obeying God, forget ‘em! Anyone who keeps you away from God has too much power. Anyone who can keep you from your Christian walk has too much power. Anyone who can pull you into unrighteousness has too much power. So if The boss instructs us to do something immoral – sorry boss. If the accountant or lawyers advise saving money by paying unjust wages or cutting necessary benefits – sorry boys. A boyfriend pressures his girl friend to have sex – sorry dear. Peers pressure to use drugs or abuse alcohol, skip school, or steal – sorry buddies. A spouse calls his or her mate away from teaching the children the ways of faith. – sorry honey. A child pressures a parent to that which is unwise or wrong. – sorry child of mine. So, do you get it? No one is to have priority of Jesus Christ and what he teaches., The word “hate” here may not be literal but on second thought, if Jesus really does have priority in our life it may cause some to say, “You’re so devoted to him, I think you hate me!”

3. The CROSS of discipleship. Jesus says if we want to be a disciple we must be willing to carry the cross. Now the cross comes in many forms, but in the end, to be a disciple does not mean we are in any way exempt from the troubles and trials of this world. Jesus indicates that we will be hated by the word (cf  Jn 15:20), persecuted and sorely tempted by this world. But if we hold out, victory will be ours. It is a simple rule: No cross, No crown. There are some who want to preach a prosperity gospel. There are others who demand a gospel stripped of its moral imperatives. Still others demand an updated faith that tickles their ears and affirms their aberrant behavior. But Jesus points to the Cross, not to torture us, but because it is the only way to glory. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33). Now, for a little while you may have to suffer various trials…(1 Peter 1:6)

4. The COST of discipleship. Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’ Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple. Jesus asks us to count the cost of what he is teaching here. Many of the Protestant preachers like to emphasize that salvation is free,  and it is. But discipleship is costly. Jesus gives the image of someone building a tower or of a king going to battle. But, truth be told, these examples are distant from us. So Jesus brings it home and says to us: anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.

The Greek word  ἀποτάσσω (apotasso) translated here as “renounce” also means, “to say farewell.” And the Lord is reminding us that heaven costs everything. Ultimately we must say farewell to everyone and everything we consider precious here in order to inherit heaven. This of course is not something that waits merely for death.

At one level, we give back everything to God as we go, little by little. We have all given back loved ones. Perhaps too we have given back youthful figures, strength, good health, and so forth. Ultimately we will give it all back.

But at another level the Lord is clear to say here that we must be willing to part with anything that hinders discipleship now, not later. The fact is that many things attach us to this world and make discipleship difficult. Are we willing to de-clutter our life, simplify and get more focused on being disciples? Or will we go on setting down roots here and amassing a worldly kingdom? What’s it going to be, the world or the Kingdom? Count the cost. See what it really means to be a disciple and what it cost, then decide.

What Jesus is looking for are disciples who, having counted the cost and realistically assessed it, are ready, nonetheless, to be his disciples. Tag-alongs, lip service Christians, fair weather folks, need not apply. So today Jesus is looking at a big crowd and teaches in a way that is meant to distinguish true disciples from the “lip service” disciples. We are asked to ponder in which category we most truthfully belong.

This Homily is available in recorded form here: http://frpope.com/audio/23%20Sun%20C.mp3

Posted on

Thoughts on Tolerance

Permit me a few thoughts on the issue of tolerance. This post is not intended as a systematic treatise on tolerance. Rather just some thoughts on a frequently misunderstood concept that some have called the only “virtue” left in our neo-pagan society.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Tolerance and toleration:

Toleration — from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer — generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. [1]

It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today:

[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” [2]

In effect tolerance involves putting up with something we consider wrong or displeasing but not so wrong that we must move to constrain it. Tolerance does NOT mean we approve of something as good. This essential point is often glossed over by those who often demand that tolerance mean approval, and that to disapprove of something makes one “intolerant.”

Of itself, tolerance is a good and necessary thing. But, like most good things, it has its limits. As a good thing, tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without tolerance we might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members who are people we like but, as with every human person, they also have annoying or less desirable traits. Without tolerance we would be locked in a power struggle and a fruitless battle to make each person perfect to us. As it is we tolerate less desirable aspects of people for higher goods such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness and the like.

However, there are limits to tolerance. There are just some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example serious and persistent  lies breach the trust necessary for relationships and such behavior is not tolerated reasonably.  Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) ought not be tolerated and often makes it necessary to end relationships or establish firm boundaries.

In wider society tolerance is also necessary and good but has limits. For example we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others. This is so even if some of the places they go, (e.g. a brothel), do not please us or win our approval. Without such a general tolerance of movement things would literally grind to a halt. But for the sake of the value of coming and going freely we put up with the less desirable aspects of it. However this tolerance has its limits. We do not permit people to drive on sidewalks, run red lights or drive in the left lane of a two way street. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We restrict unaccompanied minors from certain locales, etc. In effect, every just law enshrines some limit to tolerance. Conservative and Liberals debate what limits law should enshrine but both sides want civil law to set some limits. Even Libertarians, while wanting less law,  see a role for some law and limits, for they are not anarchists.

So, toleration is a good and necessary thing but it has its limits. Our modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:

  1. The definition of tolerance, as we have discussed, is flawed. Many people equate tolerance with approval and many call disapproval, intolerance. But, as we have seen this is flawed. Without some degree of disapproval, tolerance is not possible.
  2. The second problem centers around the limits of tolerance. In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. A lot of this behavior centers around sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance despite the fact that their behavior leads to diseases, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent families, sexual temptation, divorce, and all the ills that go with a declining family structure. Abortion proponents also demand tolerance of what they advocate although this behavior results in the death of an innocent human beings. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been transgressed in matters such as these.

Rapprochement? – The debate about toleration and its limits is not new but it seems more intense today when a shared moral vision has largely departed. Perhaps we cannot as easily define the limits of tolerance today but one way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval a greater respect will be instilled in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.

Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, find homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. But on account of our disapproval of homosexual behavior we are often called “intolerant,” (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).

But tolerance is really not the issue. Most Christians are willing to tolerate the fact the people “do things in their bedroom”  of which we disapprove.  As long as we are not directly confronted with private behavior and told to approve of it we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. But what has happened in modern times is that approval is demanded for behavior we find objectionable. When we cannot supply such approval we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.

And further, what if our objections do simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance?  Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots. Neither does it mean we are wholly intolerant and seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to patrol streets and enter bedrooms and make arrests. We are not intolerant, we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. And, according to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval, that permits us to show forth tolerance. Perhaps such a consideration might instill greater respect in these debates and less name-calling from our opponents.

An aside– Gay “marriage” is a more complicated matter since it involves existing law and a demanded change in that law by proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Most traditional Christians see a limit to tolerance here since we consider that God defined and established marriage as described in Genesis 1 & 2. Hence we cannot favor attempts to substitute a human redefinition of something we believe instituted by God.

Finally a thought as to who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christians often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves. But the paradoxical result of this is a holier-than-thou attitude and an increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-claimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions of the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square are increasing. Financial exclusion of Catholic Charities from Government money used in serving the poor are becoming more common as well.  In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops are being sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very tolerant. Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us, the same tolerance they ask of us.

Please add to this discussion.

I first saw this video at Patrick Madrid’s blog. It demonstrates comically how even those who demand tolerance often exhibit intolerance themselves.

 

Posted on

The Perils of the Pious: How the Devil Can Hijack Holy Practices

Many years ago I heard a Protestant Minister say that Satan wasn’t all that concerned when a person went to church because he could drag a soul to Hell from a church pew just as soon as from a gutter or brothel. Now preachers are given to hyperbole and perhaps some distinctions are in order here, especially for a Catholic. We do in fact believe that the Sacraments, if received fruitfully, do strengthen us and provide a sure help against the incursions of the evil. That said, we ought to also acknowledge that there are certain temptations common to believers and church-goers. Perhaps we could refer to these as the “Perils of the Pious,” or the “Risks of the Religious.”  What are some of these?

1. The Risk of Ritualistic Reductionism – This temptation is to reduce holiness and righteousness to the following of a few simple rules. One becomes proud of the fact that they go to Mass on Sunday, put some money in the basket, say a few prayers, maybe even the rosary. Now these are all good things, but the danger becomes thinking this is all we must do. We can too easily tell ourselves how good we are and not look at the deeper drives of sin in us such as unrighteous anger, rash judgment, sensuality, greed, and injustice. We think, “I am basically a good person  because of my religious observances.” On account of this thinking, we are not prone to consider that there may be some pretty ugly things about us that need attention.

Many years ago there was a woman in my parish who came to daily Mass and stayed to pray the rosary as well. In many ways she was very holy, and certainly pious. But she had a deep wound in her heart she refused to see. At least once a week she would lament to me how the “neighborhood was changing.” This was basically code for the fact that it was becoming African American. Her laments about this were quite bitter and she thought she’d have to leave the neighborhood on account of it. I suggested to her that perhaps she could love her new neighbors, get to know them, and evangelize. She rebuffed this in strong terms and said, “We’re not going to have them come in here and change our church!”  In further discussions between us it was clear that she couldn’t see her racism for the sin it was and she often protested that she had been going to Church all her life. She had reduced holiness to the following of rituals, to saying a few prayers. These are good things,  but somehow she thought this exempted her from looking at other things, or perhaps it blinded her.

The Pharisees had reduced faith to the following of 613 rules. Now this may sound impressive at first, but many of the rules were about washing things, not eating certain things and so forth. They weren’t that hard to follow. In addition to reducing holiness in this way, they also interpreted the rules in a very minimalistic way. You may recall the rich young man in the Gospel who, when being reminded to love his neighbor asked Jesus, And who is my neighbor?  (Lk. 10:29). In effect what he is trying to do is minimize the concept of “neighbor.” It is as if to say, “If I have to love my neighbor, let’s define neighbor strictly and keep this whole thing manageable.” This is what the Pharisees did, they reduced holiness to a very narrow spectrum and thought they could buy God off by these observances.

There is more to holiness than ritual observance. To this peril of the pious the Lord says, For I desire mercy more than sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6). Jesus reiterates: If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matt. 12:7).

2. Crass Comparison – The religiously observant exhibit important virtues that are praiseworthy. Going to church and praying, reading Scripture, and financially supporting the Church are good things. The religiously observant also strive to avoid serious sins such as fornication, immodesty, drunkenness and the like. They may not live perfect lives,  and surely they admit that, but they do strive to heed God’s Law. However, this too can lead to the tendency to rashly judge others and to show a lack of humility. It becomes too easy to congratulate ourselves for being decent people. We can think, “At least I’m not like that prostitute or that corrupt city official!”  But in the process we can lack the humility to see our own sins as significant, or to see ourselves as in need of great mercy.

The fact is, being better than a prostitute or a corrupt city official is not the standard that’s going to get us heaven. The standard that we must meet is Jesus Christ. Now if we really grasp this and understand how far we are from meeting that standard, then we will humbly cry for mercy. But the peril of the pious is to compare ourselves to others, not to Jesus. Too easily we can become smug and superior, arrogant. We can become unaware that we too need boatloads of grace and mercy to even stand a chance of getting to heaven.

To address this peril of the pious Scripture also speaks: To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

3. Checking off the God-Box – There are some people who are religiously observant not so much because they Love God but more because they want to control Him or overcome their fear of Him. We can too easily reason that because we have said certain prayers, or followed certain rules we have “checked off the God box.” Once we’ve said our prayers we can feel safe and get on with our day.

Perhaps this attitude is rooted in fear, and so the thinking is that I have to placate God to get what I want from him. If I don’t pray, perhaps bad things will happen, or good things won’t happen. So I need to pray, but the motive, conscious or unconscious,  is more to advance my own agenda and self-interest than loving attentiveness to God.

Another more cynical form of this is to pray and fulfill religious duties more as a strange way of keeping God at a distance. The thinking here is that God has to be honored for my life to go well. Hence, I will do some quick devotions, (i.e., check off the God-box) and then I can feel free to get on with my day. St. John Vianney said of some who pray in this manner: And still worse, there are some who speak to the good God like this: “I will only say a couple of things to you, and then I will be rid of you.(Catechisme sur la priere: A. Monnin, Esprit du Cure d’Ars, Paris 1899, pp. 87-89).

God wants whole hearted devotion, not perfunctory practice. And we can too easily think that quick devotions, good though they are, will be sufficient. But love is extravagant and wants to do more, not less. God wants love, not lip service. Religious rituals and recited prayers are beautiful things, but they are not the end of our relationship with God they are the beginning. Yet there are some among the religiously observant who think that perfunctory observance will buy God off or permit them to run off in their own directions for the rest of the day. To them the Lord says, This people draw near with their words, and honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists [merely] of tradition learned by rote, (Isaiah 29:13).

You may wish to add to this list. The main point here is that our flesh and the devil can take beautiful things of the faith and twist them for other, less holy purposes. Beware these perils of the pious, these risks of religious.

This video is a rather “humorous” interview with the Devil and how he actually likes the Church because it provides him opportunities to take good things and twist them for bad outcomes. Not sure I agree with everything in the video (e.g. it seems to imply that being right is a form of arrogance) but it is fun and thought-provoking.

Posted on

It’s Time to Obey Christ and His Command that We Evangelize

The last words of someone are usually considered extremely important. Perhaps they express a final wish, or summarize what was most important to the person. Thus we do well to consider the final words of Jesus just before he ascended into heaven:

Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt 28:19-20).

This is often called the “Great Commission” in the sense that it is the overarching mission, job one, the standing orders for the Church, for any Catholic. There is nothing ambiguous about it either. Jesus says go! But where Lord? Everywhere! Every nation, every person. And Do what? Make disciples of them by drawing them into the sacramental life of the Church through baptism and teaching them everything I have commanded. Finally He bids us have no fear of this for he is with us to the end.

Pretty clear, right? And yet it is possible for the Church, a parish or a Catholic to push Job One down the list. Pray, sure, attend Mass, OK, tithe, I’ll try. Evangelize? Oops, I’m a little busy and rather shy too, you understand…..

Time to Obey – After years of declining Mass attendance, churches closing, schools, seminaries and convents shuttering their doors, children and family members no longer practicing their faith, perhaps it is just time to get back into the business of obeying Jesus Christ and his command that we evangelize. It’s not the job of some committee in the parish, it’s your job and mine. It’s not merely the pastor’s job, it’s the parishioners too. Remember, shepherds don’t have sheep, sheep have sheep. It’s easy to blame the Church or the liturgy or poor catechesis but the primary place the faith is handed on in the family. Pastor’s have to lead but the Pastor isn’t at your dinner table every night, not at your workplace, family gathering or neighborhood meeting. All of us have to do this, all of us must obey.

A Parish that Obeys has a Future – In my own parish, after years of declining numbers we’ve decided to obey Christ. I had been assigned to this parish in the early 90s and Mass attendance was at about 800 each Sunday, about average for a city parish. I left to pastor elsewhere in the diocese and upon my return to this parish I noticed a much emptier Church and looked to the usher counts for recent Sundays: 482, 502, 473, 512. In ten years the count had dropped 38%. 300 people had drifted away.  People seemed unaware of this. When people disappear one by one over ten years it’s less noticeable. But I, returning after ten years noticed it. And my parish is not unique. Most parishes are down in numbers from what they used to be.

Now some folks like to “explain” declining numbers by talking about demographics, sociological trends, secularization and the like.  But thank God, I’m blessed with a parish that wants to hear from God, which knows that God can make a way out of no way, a parish which prays for their pastor to get a Word from the Lord. And the Lord did not disappoint. The word was simple, “Obey.”  Obey the great commission, obey Job One. The Lord seemed rather clear and put it on my heart to say to the Parish that if we will obey the Lord in this we have a future. If we do not obey him we do not deserve to exist. For too long the Catholic approach to evangelization was to open the doors and expect people to come. But Jesus sent them out to where people were to call and invite and evangelize. It’s time to obey.

So, for the past year we have been preparing through prayer and study to go forth in a door to door campaign into our neighborhood. Jesus sent his disciples out two by two and so we also will go in obedience. Almost Fifty people have agreed to make the weekly walk for 8 weeks starting September 11. Fifty will pray while we walk and others will prepare a meal on our return. We’re stepping out. I do not know if the Lord will give us many new souls or few but only this I know, if we obey, we have a future.

We are also reaching back into our families and inviting them back, listening to their concerns and setting forth a host of activities. These activities are  designed to draw them back and interest our neighbors so we can get to know them and make the invitation to be disciples. We will have concerts, the blessing of the animals, Bible studies, civic meetings etc. Anything to get folks here and meet them, befriend them and invite them to discipleship. Just the beauty of our building and joy of our parishioners preaches Christ. I preparation I’ve been walking the neighborhood and meeting people.

In the Archdiocese of Washington as well we are getting focused anew on Job One. The Archbishop is preparing a pastoral letter on Evangelization. He’s been restructuring the Central Pastoral Administration around the task of evangelizing. We’re reaching out in new ways such as this blog, and preparing to do far more by revamping the Website, reaching out through Youtube, podcasting, direct and targeted e-mail, focused facebook  pages and other social media. The Archbishop’s letter will reveal other plans as well. We want to be more pro-active and obey Christ by intensifying our work to explicitly evangelize using all the new methods available.

And perhaps you’ve heard that Catholic Radio has come in the last month to the Nation’s Capital: WMET 1160 AM. You can also stream the signal at their website here: http://grnonline.info/  The station presents EWTN programming and is part of the Guadalupe Radio Network. Soon enough, local programming will also be presented in addition to the EWTN lineup. This presents a great leap forward in the ability of the Archdiocese and the wider Church  to fulfill the mandate of Jesus to evangelize, to proclaim the Gospel to everyone.

And what of you? How do you obey the mandate of Christ to evangelize? Every Sunday at Mass you are sent forth by the deacon or priest with these words: The Mass is ended, go in peace.” There’s that word again: Go. It means “Go and tell someone what you have heard and seen. Tell someone of Jesus whom you have met in this liturgy and who has ministered to you with his Word and sacrament. Tell someone what a difference he has made in your life.”  Go.

These days evangelization comes in many different forms. Even if you’re shy, what does it take to do things like:

  1. E-mail a friend a link about a great blog post or article you read?
  2. Send the link to the new radio station: http://grnonline.info/.
  3. Send Links to YouTube videos that inspire.
  4. There are great Catholic Websites and blogs. The New evangelization has made it easier to connect people to answers and resources. Sites like www.newadvent.org  and the Catholic Answers website www.Catholic.com  are rich veins information and encouragement.
  5. Some of you who are technically savvy can help your pastor podcast his sermons or get them out on YouTube. Maybe you can help breathe new life into an out of date webpage.
  6. Talk to your family members who are fallen away and ask them “where it hurts.” Find out what has kept them away and share the story of your own faith.
  7. Get in the habit of inviting unchurched people to join you for special events at your parish. Not everyone is ready for a pew but a Chicken dinner might at least establish some connections where evangelization can take place.
  8. Tell folks you’re praying for them and actually do it. Ask for prayer requests.
  9. And pray, pray, pray for an increase, for a new springtime in the Church. Too many souls today are drifting and the Lord needs us to obey in order to save some.

The Bottom line is that we have got to get back into the business of obeying Jesus Christ in the mandate to Evangelize. To be a disciple means to obey. Jesus was not ambiguous about his final wish: Go, Go everywhere, in every available way. Go. Make disciples of everyone by drawing them into the sacramental life of the Church and teaching them everything the Lord has commanded. Go.

Posted on

On the Mend: The Church in the Early 21st Century

Back when I was in Seminary in the 1980s there was a “Revisionist Creed” that floated around. We never used it in any way in the Seminary and most of us thought of it as a joke that some one had ginned up. But it reflected the relativism of those times which most of us knew had deeply invaded even the Catholic Church and was disastrously affecting other seminaries, religious orders and universities. I found it flipping through my files the other day, a yellowed and wrinkled copy. Here it is:

I believe in the concept of deity,
Gentle and nurturing parent of all,
Womb of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ
its primary offspring
our counselor and brother
born of a Palestinian maiden
harshly treated by an intolerant Roman official
died and was buried
somewhere.

Sometime afterwards he/she “reappeared” in some form or memory
and ever since remains as a symbol of
moral a religious values.

I believe in the spirit of toleration,
the universal and essential goodness of all humankind
the primacy of fellowship,
the acceptance of diversity
the end of all suffering
and continuous human evolution.

Frankly the 1980s were difficult times in the Church and, in many ways dissent had reached its zenith. Many openly questioned the veracity of Scripture, and numerous of the fundamental moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church. I recall a steady diet of so-called Catholic theologians denying that Jesus ever knew he was God, claimed to be God or even was God. The historicity of the scriptures was openly questioned and many a simple believer, on recalling a passage of Scripture that upheld Catholic truth was scornfully told, “Jesus never said that!” Liturgical abuses were far more common and tolerated and moral theology, at least the Catholic version, was on holiday from most Catholic Universities. Yes, they were difficult times to be sure, at least here in America.

I think things have improved greatly in the Church since then. Most of the seminarians and young priests I have met are solid, orthodox men who love the Church and are eager to proclaim what she teaches. The laity too demonstrate a growing hunger for the unabridged version of Catholic Faith. Beginning in the late 1980s huge numbers of very solid magazines and publishing houses blossomed and began publishing and republishing wonderfully solid Catholic materials. This began to push back against the open dissent of the 1970s and 1980s. As the Internet dawned a whole host of great websites that are supportive of the faith have also burst forth. Many superb lay movements and new religious orders have also taken their place on the scene and are growing.

Yes, these are comparatively wonderful times. There are still troubles to be sure and the culture around us continues its alarming descent downward into confusion and darkness. But I am convinced that God is doing something powerful in the Church and that necessary reforms are well underway. I am no prophet but I do see that if American culture and civilization stand a chance it will be because of what the Lord is doing in and for the Church right now. Our on-going reforms will result in two things: we will be a light in the darkness and we will be increasingly persecuted. But praise God, I am convinced we are being purified and God is up to something good. Even the dreadful Sex abuse crisis has served to sober us up and call us to account for our laxity of the past. The days are difficult in our culture, all the more reason we should we clear and uncompromising in the glorious truth God has given us.

Unambiguous Creed – Back in those difficult days of the early 80s some of us seminarians came up with our own Creed to respond to the “revisionist creed.” We sort of stitched this thing together from various sources and each of its lines was carefully crafted to address errors that confronted us in those days. Frankly we kept this thing under wraps at that time since open asserting dogmatic truth was seen as “rigid” in the early 1980s. And to be labeled “rigid” was a death sentence to a seminarian. But looking through my files I found this and am pleased to say that it would no longer need to be kept under wraps today. Here’s what we compiled from various sources:

I, standing before almighty God and enlightened by his divine grace profess the faith which the Roman Catholic Church teaches. With firm faith I believe and profess each and all the articles that are contained in the Apostles’ Creed, that is:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven
and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of
the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was
crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell;
the third day He arose from the dead; he ascended into heaven
sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from
thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the
communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection
of the body, and life everlasting.

  • I accept and embrace most firmly the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all the other constitutions and prescriptions of the Church.
  • I accept the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which has been held and is still held by Holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, and I shall never knowingly accept or interpret them in any other way.
  • I profess that the sacraments of the New Law are seven in number, instituted by Christ for our salvation, though all are not necessary for each individual: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony.
  • I profess that all confer grace and that, of these, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege. I also accept and admit the ritual of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the sacraments.
  • I accept and hold, in each and every part, all that has been defined and declared by the Sacred Councils concerning original sin and justification.
  • I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, real and perfect sacrifice for the living and the dead; that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist is really, truly and substantially the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ through the change of all of the substance of the bread into the Body, and all of the substance of the wine into the Blood. I confess also that in receiving under either of these species I receive Jesus Christ, whole and entire.
  • I firmly hold that purgatory exists and that the souls of the faithful departed who are there can be helped by the prayers of the faithful.
  • Likewise I hold that the saints, who reign with Jesus Christ should be venerated and may be invoked to offer prayers to God for us. I likewise assert that this veneration, far from diminishing God’s glory, rather, furthers it by acknowledging what the Love, Grace and Power of God can accomplish in weak human nature.
  • I profess firmly that the images of Jesus Christ and of the Mother of God, ever virgin, as well as of all the saints, should be given due honor and veneration on account of who they represent.
  • I recognize the holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as the mother and teacher for all and accept without hesitation and profess all that has been handed down, defined, declared and taught by the Church.
  • I likewise embrace the teaching concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals and, accepting his primacy, I promise and swear true obedience to the Holy Father who is the vicar of Jesus Christ and successor to Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles.
  • This Catholic Faith, outside of which no one who knowingly rejects it can ever be saved, I now freely profess and I shall, with the help of God, maintain and profess this same faith entire and inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of my life.
  • I shall also strive to see that, as far possible, this same faith shall be held, taught and publicly professed by all those who depend on me and by those of who I shall have charge.
  • Amen.

A little different than the revisionist creed, don’t you think?

I am interested in what you think is happening in the Church, especially if you lived through 70s and 80s. As I have said, I think God is doing great things. More is surely needed. Our continuing drop in attendance must also be turned around. But in the end, I am once again assured of the Lord’s promise that the gates of hell, though they try, are not going to prevail against the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Here is a silly video that depicts the dissent of 70s and 80s in a cartoonish way. It may be a bit unfair in it’s rather light-hearted approach. Not all dissent can be reduced to this ridiculous picture. But I have to say he reminds me perfectly of some of the religion teachers I had in middle school CCD back in the early 70s. The jeans, the sweater and and the smarmy conversation and the notion that there are no answers and the way that “tolerance” gives way to anger when the right buttons get pushed. So take this for what it’s worth. It’s a cartoon-like hyperbole of the laid back 70s.

Posted on

Why is the First Sin called the "Sin of Adam" not the "Sin of Adam and Eve?"

Original Sin as you (hopefully) know is that first sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit  of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-7). It is clearly a sin that involved both of them. And yet, both in Scripture and Tradition when this sin is referred to formally by name it is called the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” It is also described  as coming to us “through one man”  not “through Adam and Eve” or “through a man and a woman.” Consider the following quotes from Scripture and then from the Catechism:

  1. Like Adam,  they [Israel]  have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there. (Hosea 6:7)
  2. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man….death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam…. (Rom 5:12, 14)
  3. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)
  4. All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man…. (CCC # 402)
  5. Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin….(CCC # 403)
  6. How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. (CCC # 404)

Why just Adam? Now, to be sure, both Scripture and the Catechism describe the Sin as involving both Adam and Eve, but neither formally refer to it as the “Sin of Adam and Eve” but only, the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” Sin comes to us through Adam. Why is this?

I want to propose several answers, not all of them politically correct. Now in doing this I am not hereby indicating that everything I am about to say is the formal teaching of the Church. Some of what I present is speculative. Hence I hope you will feel free to critique it and add to what I have written as well as subtract. Here are a few “explanations” as to why it seems fitting that Original Sin is referred to formally as the “Sin of Adam.”

 1. Parallelism – St. Paul makes it clear that we are saved by Christ alone. This is because sin came through “one man” and hence we are saved by “one Man,”  the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ are all made alive (cf Rom 5:17; 1 Cor 15:22).  So parallelism makes it fitting that since one Man saved us, hence we were steeped in sin through one man. Now this argument is ultimately unsatisfying since is amounts to a kind of post hoc, propter hoc sort of argument. We’re really back-loading the whole thing here by starting with a conclusion (we are saved by one Man) and then developing the premise (one man, sinned). But, it is a true fact that the New Testament guides and influences our understanding of the Old Testament, and it should. Hence there are two Adams, a “man-for Man” parallelism. And in this sense the first sin is fittingly called the “Sin of Adam.”

2. The headship of Adam – Scripture teaches of the headship of the husband in marriage (cf Eph 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1; Titus 5:2; Col 3:18). When God ordained marriage he stated that “A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall be one” (Gen 2:24). Hence it is the man who leads the marriage and is its head. But this makes him finally responsible for  takes place in that marriage.

Now our modern age tends to think of headship in terms of privilege but Scripture speaks of it more in terms of responsibility and service (cf Mark 10:41-45; Lk 12:48). Thus the headship of the husband brings to him a final responsibility for what happens under his roof. This does not mean his wife is without guilt, any more than Eve was without guilt. But headship does mean that the head has to answer for what happens.

I am the head of my parish. Now if some members of my parish or a staff member do something wrong, the Bishop does not call them, he calls me and expects me to handle the matter. I am ultimately responsible for what happens in my parish and must account for it, correct it and accept that I share responsibility for what has happened. This may be because I failed to teach properly, or perhaps I failed to exercise oversight or due diligence. It may not be all my fault, but as head, I have to answer for it.

Hence Original Sin is called the “Sin of Adam” since he was the head of that early household and was finally responsible for what took place. In this regard, notice that when God was looking for them in the Garden after they had sinned he did not say “Adam and Eve where are you?” He said, Adam, where are you? (Gen 3:9) It is Adam who must render an account. Eve is not without blame but God calls out Adam. Adam had headship and in this sense the first sin is fittingly called the “Sin of Adam.”

3. The “Complexity” of Original Sin – When we think of the first sin we tend to think of it as simply the eating of a forbidden fruit. But I want to suggest to you that the first sin was a little more complicated than that and thus involves Adam a little more we commonly think.

Adam had been placed in the Garden and, even prior to Eve’s creation, been told to work the garden and keep it (Gen 2:15). Some translations say he is to work in and guard it. After the creation of Eve and at the moment of temptation we see that Eve has something of a long conversation with the devil wherein he spars with her to cause her to be tempted and ultimately to fall.

Now during this time where is Adam? He would seem to be far off since nothing is said by him. But the text quite remarkably discloses that he was standing right next to her the whole time she converses with Satan! (Gen 3:6). Why this silence from Adam? One would expect Adam to say to Satan, “Why are you speaking with my wife?….What are you saying to her?……Why are you trying to mislead her….?” One would further expect Adam to retort what Satan was saying and defend his wife from this temptation and error. Surely Eve should not have had to answer the Devil all on her own. She does well to begin but then grows weak under the onslaught. Why does Adam not step in to protect and augment his wife’s strength? Why does he not assist her in this struggle and help defend against this threat? Is his silence not part of the first sin? Is his omission not integral to the fall of them both?

Adam had an obligation to rebuff Satan and guard his wife and the garden. But he is passive. As head of the house he has the first responsibility to defend his household from all error, sin and threat. Eve should not have had to face the devil and answer him alone. He was worse than useless, his silence gave strength to Satan’s arguments. Eve is not without sin but Adam has failed miserably to assist Eve and provide the support she needs and deserves.

Now, dear reader, permit my flourishes here. After all I am a preacher at heart and preachers love hyperbole. I admit some excess in my cross-examination but also stand by its basic point which is that the first sin involved more than eating the fruit. That was its culmination. But complicit silence from Adam was integral to the fall as well. It set the stage for the first sin. In this sense too,  the first sin is fittingly called the “Sin of Adam.”

Well, enough said by me. Have at it. Add other points. Distinguish what I have already set forth or wholly reject it if you wish. But ponder with me why, when original sin is called by name, it is called, “the Sin of Adam?”