Authority

Question: I would be interested to hear your convictions regarding what is to be the authority for the foundation of, and what or who has the final word in the matter of the practice of our faith.

I'm assuming (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that the reply you may be anticipating is that, for Catholics, the Pope has the final say in all matters regarding our religion. And you'd be sort of correct. But first, to the non-correct part. :-)

For Catholics, in all matters of faith and morals, the ultimate authority is each person's own conscience. Answers.com defines conscience thus:

1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong.
2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement.
3. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct.

Each person has the responsibility and the blessing to follow what they think is good, right, moral, ethical, etc. However, the Church doesn’t leave it there. It should be a properly informed conscience that directs each person's actions. "Properly informed" then becomes a catch-phrase that includes the following (not necessarily in order of importance): reading Scripture, listening to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and/or a collective body of Bishops), praying for guidance from the Spirit on particular matters, listening to the stories told of our saints, discussing matters with trusted clergy/family/friends, and looking for guidance from secular authorities as needed (doctors, lawyers, psychologists, etc.).

Once all avenues have been exhausted in trying to come to a decision over a particular matter/issue/decision, a persons' conscience becomes the ultimate court for deciding a certain course of action. The Church affirmed, in one of the documents from the Second Vatican Council, that we would be judged according to our properly informed conscience.

This leads some to say that anything is OK as long as you think it's OK. And some would say the Church irresponsibly advocates this position by teaching about conscience. But I think that if people are looking for excuses to commit sin, well . . . they'll find the excuses anywhere. The Church stresses a properly informed conscience because, come on! - once we've gone through that list of Six Things To Do Before Making A Decision, chances are really, really good that you'll make a God-delighting decision. :-)

However, if you're asking about the teaching authority of the Church (as the Catholic church sees it), then this is where the Pope and bishops come in. It's Catholic teaching that the Pope, in conjunction with the worldwide body of bishops, has ultimate authority to proscribe and define the moral/ethical and faith-related doctrine that the Church stands for.

In other words, if the Pope definitively gives a moral/ethical stance, then it is the moral/ethical stance of the Church, and by definition requires every Catholic to seriously study the meaning and implications of that message. A "properly informed conscience" requires that we give serious thought and prayer to the moral imperative handed down by our church's temporal leader. In practice, the Pope and the bishops (collectively called the Magisterium) don't often hand out definitive statements on faith and morals. Similarly, our church doesn't have many Scripture passages that have been definitively interpreted in one way or another - as Catholics we do have latitude in our interpretation of Scripture (St. Jerome used to talk about the many hidden levels of meaning in each word of Scripture, let alone each passage / section!) and in our practice of our faith. But if there ever is a debate on something, and a definitive answer has to be given on an issue of faith or morals, as Catholics we would look to our Pope and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium).

Blessings & Peace,

Hugo

Adam & Eve

My brother asked me a question about this, so I'm endeavoring to answer. This may take a while :) The gist of the question: were Adam and Eve real, historical figures?

My short answer: no.

My longer answer starts with the way Catholics view Biblical Inspiration. We are not literalists who believe that every word and punctuation mark was dictated by God to a responsive person who wrote it down like a dutiful secretary. God would never destroy our free will by making us automatons who only wrote what he told us to write.

We also do not view Scripture as a purely man-made endeavor. We see Scripture being inspired by God, but the human authors working with God - using their God given free will - to craft sections of the Bible according to their intelligence, culture, and time. Hence any Catholic approach to Scripture will take into account different questions: who wrote it? why? for whom was it written? when? where? what references (cultural, religious, etc.) could the author take for granted and believe that his audience would also take for granted? We strive to put each book of Scripture into it's historical context so as not to read our own limited view of history into the Biblical account.

Coupled with this is the fact that our Bible is not written by one person but by many human authors writing in different ways. Just like a newspaper has different sections, our Bible (which is not one book, but a collection of books, poetry, and letters) has different literary genres. We can see history (many portions of the Old Testament, the Acts of the Apostles), poetry (Psalms, the Song of Songs), fiction (short stories like Job and Jonah), Gospel (a distinct literary style found in, of course, the gospels!), apocalyptic writing (Revelation, portions of the Old Testament), and many others.

One of the distinct literary styles is that of religious myth. Myth, in this Scriptural / theological context is not the same as fairy tale or lie. It is a fictional / ahistorical (or prehistorical) story that is the vehicle for religious truth. The first 11 chapter of Genesis fall into this primordial genre of myth - they are stories that cannot be traced historically, and that in fact are not intended to be read as historical documents.

Myths then are stories that pre-scientific peoples created to try and understand things that may now be better described by different branches of science. However, we view our Scripture as divinely inspired, so we believe that - fictional as it is - the creation stories in Genesis are there to teach us.

And what do they teach? They teach us that God is the ultimate force that sets the universe in motion. They teach us that God created everything out of nothing, and that if not for God's abiding presence everything would collapse back into nothingness. They teach us that God has ordered the universe in specific ways, and that we can discern these laws in the order of the universe. They teach us that we are lovingly handcrafted by God, and that God's own spirit/breath animates us and gives us life. They teach us that God loves us as individuals and as a human race. They teach us that at some point we as humans learned how to sin, and that this knowledge created a rift between us and God. They teach us that even as that rift began God already had a plan for sealing the rift in the future.

Just because the stories are not historically accurate does not mean that they are not religiously true. And that is why Adam and Eve do not have to be historical creatures for us to appreciate the revelation God has given us through them and the stories of creation.

Blessings & Peace,

Hugo

Salvation Continued

Same disclaimer as my previous two posts :)

Is there a basic assumption being made with your response? As I agree that the question in and of itself is to me very modern in it's approach and assumptions. What then allows one to make the choice to cross the threshold of Heaven? Is it JUST how we lived our life?

Hmmm . . . I think at that point it's less of a choice then my initial response would lead one to believe. I think that, once we've charted our course here on earth, at the moment of death and resurrection we are almost compelled to finish our course. If we lived lives of unrepentance, unforgiveness and hardness of heart, no matter how much the Light tries to shine in we'll find ways to block it out. So once we enter eternity, we no longer have that much of a choice - our lives have already prepared us either for an air-conditioned afterlife, or one that's decidedly . . . warmer. :-)

As a Catholic how does one get to heaven? What role does Jesus, Mary, and the Church play in all this?

Going with more traditional language, participating in the sacraments (which includes having an active prayer life) and leading a moral life (which includes acts of service to others) are the two main pillars that lead to salvation. Each sacramental celebration finds us basking in the presence of the Crucified and Risen Lord; hence, each sacrament is a moment of grace - we are touched by the life of God and immersed in his holy and sanctifying presence. The Church becomes a sacrament herself, being a sacrament of Jesus - the visible, tangible reality that points to the invisible, intangible presence of Christ in the world.

Mary, apart from some very strong devotional trends, is actually not as theologically central as many people paint her to be. We venerate and honor her as the Mother of God (theotokos) and the Mother of Jesus, and we believe in her perpetual virginity and assorted doctrines, but it's not necessary for salvation per se. Our salvation comes from the paschal mystery of Jesus - the incarnation, life, passion, death and resurrection that restored the cosmos to it's glory.

I see that God has thrown open the gates of Heaven and unworthy men have seized Heaven by God's Grace. I see when we see our self, our true self, we then deem if we are worthy of entering in the Goodness of God...(Heaven) or if we remain separated from God. I see without Christ... God's Judgement is ON us. I think this is why some Christians will not enter into Heaven.. as they have not forgiven.... though they have been forgiven with this realization they then make a choice of Whose righteousness they will depend on. I think this is why Jesus says to some I never knew you....

Yeah, that's the rub - Catholic theology affirms that we can never be sure of our salvation - because there's always that chance that Jesus will say "I do not know you." It's called presumption in Catholic theology - daring to say, with 100% assurance, "I will make it into heaven - no doubt about it!" We can not be sure - we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, to paraphrase Paul.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

Getting Into Heaven

Another cannibalized post from my email rantings :) I've touched on it before in previous posts, here are some more thoughts.

Question: I am curious: would you be so kind to give me your answer to this question? If you were to stand before God today at the gate of heaven and He was to say to you, "Hugo, tell me why I should let you into my heaven." What would be your answer?

Hmmm . . . I'm going to reframe the question and give some context as to my reframing of the question. I think that at the moment of death we go through a purgation - we start to let go (in a psychological / spiritual sense) of our attachments to our lives here on earth and start to turn our eyes towards our future life in timelessness (in heaven). Once we are free of our attachments we stand naked before God, neither deceiving ourselves or able to be deceived any longer (we will see things clearly for the very first time in our lives, no longer seeing darkly). We will know the truth of our lives, becoming intimately re-familiar with the course our life on earth took. We will be offered God's forgiveness, mercy, love, compassion and justice. And we - not God - will decide if we are worthy of entering into heaven.

I believe that God has already made the ultimate decision - everyone gets in - everyone. As children of God, as sons and daughters of the Most High, as creatures created in the image and likeness of God, we are invited and welcomed to the ultimate banqueting table . . . and the choice then becomes ours.

My Catholic theology helps me affirm that the lives we lived here on earth will help chart the course that our lives will take in the hereafter. If we practiced giving and accepting forgiveness while alive here, we will be able to accept God's justice and mercy when we stand in judgment. If, however, we lived an obstinate life, never shedding our hearts of stone, never giving and accepting forgiveness . . . well, there's no telling if we'll be able to do it from one moment to eternity - if we never practiced here on earth, we'll fail in the real test.

So I don't conceive of God asking me why I should get it . . . I conceive of God throwing the doors wide open and inviting me in. Them, in an eternal moment, as I weigh my actions, my thoughts, my desires, my attachments, my cravings, my very heart and soul, I will decide to either accept or deny God's invitation.

I will either exist in the timelessness of heaven basking in the Presence of my Creator, or I will linger on, knowing that I have turned my back on the One who could love me . . . still loves me . . . but cannot have his love reciprocated because of my hardness of heart.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

The Eucharist (or "What is Transubstantiation?")

I belong to an email discussion list where I'm the only Catholic (which had made for some fun discussions!). I have 100's of saved emails - I'm culling through them for some blogger material. So for the next few weeks - enjoy :) Also, I copied and pasted quotes from several websites - most of the time I made it explicit that I was giving info from another source, but a few times I don't think I did - please excuse the inadvertent plagarism. :)

Question: Where and how did the doctrine of Transubstantiation originate? Where do Catholics get the idea that there is a literal transformation of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? It seems to me that the words of Christ have to be figurative when He refers to the bread and wine saying "This is my body..."

The actual term "transubstantiation" is not found in official Catholic theology until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and there the term is used to denote the belief that that bread and wine used in the Eucharistic meal become the body and blood of Christ while remaining bread and wine.

However, prior to that scholastic definition and clarification, the notion of the bread and wine only symbolically representing the body and blood of Christ was not common. Here's a brief selection of texts: 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29John 6:32–71 (I won't write these in - we can all look them up as needed) :-)

Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood ("Early Christian Doctrines" pg. 440, J.N.D. Kelly).

Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity (Kelly, pgs. 197-198).

Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally (Kelly, pgs. 211-212)."

If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 4:33–32. approx. 189 AD).

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? (ibid., 5:2).

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures" 19:7, approx. 350 AD).

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid., 22:6, 9).

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction (Augustine, "Sermons 227", approx. 411 AD).

So more quotes than I thought I'd put in at first - sorry! :-)

The question of whether or not the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ is not brought into serious question until the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation. By that time, however, Martin Luther and his fellow reformers were rebelling against a corrupted, superstitious form of the Real Presence, for example, that if the consecrated host were scratched it would bleed.

The more theological explanation has to do with Greek philosophy, where a distinction was made between the accidents and the substance of an object. The substance of an object was what it really was (it's essence, it's core, the heart of the matter, etc.). The accidents were those parts of an object that were not it's essence. So in regards to the bread and wine, the act of consecration changes the substance, but leaves the accidents intact. In other words, the bread still tastes, looks, smells and feels like bread - it's accidents remain unchanged. But it's substance (the heart and soul of the object) are now transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus. Same with the wine - the accidents (alcoholic properties, color, flavor, etc.) remain unchanged, but the essence (the substance of the wine) is now the real presence of Jesus Christ.

For a more homey example, think of us as people. In a crude example, our bodies are our substance and our clothes are our accidents. No mater how we dress ourselves up (shorts and a t-shirt, tuxedo, swimwear, pajamas) our substance stays the same. In the Eucharist it is reversed, with the interior (the substance) changing, but the exterior (the accidents) staying the same.

One last distinction, though. We believe, as we have for millenia, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. That is the doctrine. The word "transubstantiation" and it's related theology is our attempt to explain how it happens. We happen to use Greek philosophical language to try and explain it, but even should our language fail the Church still holds fast to the sacramental mystery of Christ with us.

Also, as a quick aside, since the advent of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, we have affirmed that the real presence of Jesus Christ is present in various ways during our celebration of the Divine Liturgy - Christ is present in the person of the priest, in the gathered assembly, in the proclamation of the Scriptures, and in the Consecrated bread and wine - we literally bring, share and partake of communion throughout the whole Eucharistic liturgy . . . a far cry from the times when many Catholics only dared approach the Eucharist once or twice a year.

Blessings & Peace,

Hugo