What Is "Truth"? My Reply to a Seeker

Last year, my little netbook (which was my primary computer at the time) suffered a catastrophic melt-down of the type that for a time basically left me without my own personal computer. All my files and projects became inaccessible and were, for the most part, gone for good (Wah!). I have since then learned the error of my ways and am backing up all my important data.

Recently, I ran across a draft of a blog entry that I was composing at the time my netbook crashed and that I had presumed was gone forever. It was a reworking of an e-mail that I sent in response to a dear relative several years ago who was considering foregoing the Catholic Church for the religion of a friend (ironically, the relative was also experiencing computer problems at that time). We exchanged a few e-mails on the subject, and the question came up, "How can I know the truth?" Below is my answer (slightly edited) which I thought I'd share here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm afraid I can’t help you with your Windows Explorer-- I’'ll defer to others on that. But you also asked the question: how can a person know the truth?

Well, I hope you really want to know, because one of the reasons it took me so long to answer is that I wanted to think it over and give you MY best answer and not just send you another article. So here goes:

How do you know the truth? That’s a good question and one that almost everyone asks themselves sooner or later. Socrates said that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Confucius tells us that “the aim of the superior man is truth.”

In the Bible, Jesus tells us if we listen to him “"we are truly [his] disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31-32), and that "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which I very highly recommend you have a copy of) says: “Man [and of course this includes women] tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth." (CCC 2467). 

Many of the really important things we come to know or to believe are usually a result of a serious search, examination and reflection. A lot of intangibles like love and acceptance, responsibility and commitment, we learn by experience. These things are real, but are personal and hard to really explain. Truth, on the other hand is actually more tangible; it is something that can be identified and recognized when seen, and can be explained and shared with someone else. 

The first thing to do is to pray. This is also the last thing, but a lot of people tend to look on prayer as only a tactic of last resort, when in fact what makes more sense is that you want to invoke God's assistance and guidance before (and during) your search for Truth as well. Even if you aren't at the place yet where you even believe there's a God who hears and answers prayer, a simple prayer such as "God, I don't know if you are even real, but if you are please guide me to you and to the Truth" is a perfectly good one.

At this point you can start asking questions-- serious questions with the intent of really wanting to know the answer. We could start with a dictionary definition of truth: “Conformity to fact or actuality; fidelity to an original or standard; reality, actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true; sincerity, integrity.” By this it follows that, whatever the opposite of truth is, is not the truth. Based on this, we can further say what the truth is not. Truth is not: 

· Our feelings or emotions or personal preference 

· Whatever seems true for one situation and not another 

· Whatever seems true for one person (culture, group, etc.) and not another 

· Whatever seems true for another time and place, but not another 

In other words, Truth is not subjective, nor is it relative. Authentic Truth cannot be one thing for me and another for you. Either something is true, or it is not.

Is what someone is telling you the Truth-- really the Truth? Maybe, maybe not. What is important is to hold what you hear to an objective (true) standard to which it can be measured. 

For example, let’s now briefly take up the issue you had before you recently: is someone telling you their church believes one thing, but you are told by someone else that is not the case? Both statements cannot be true, so in that case you must do one of two things: believe the person or source that you trust the most, or research the issue yourself. 

If you decide to research the issue, you also must weigh the reliability of the materials you use to find your answers. If you take the word of a trusted (not merely likable) person or source over another, you must decide which source or person is more reliable. In this case we are discussing, the question would be: is what the Mormons say is true or is what the Catholic Church says true? Who is more reliable and more likely to possess the Truth? 

This is how I see it, and you can take it for what it’s worth. It is a fact of history that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself and that the Scriptures clearly teach that he gave his own authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to this same Church to teach in his name until he comes again (I think I have good historical, logical, biblical and experiential reasons for believing this and if you are interested I can send you or direct you towards some further information). As a result, I believe the Church is an entirely reliable source and guide for Truth and has been such for almost 2000 years. On the other hand, it is a fact of history that the Mormon religion was founded less that 200 years ago by a man with a questionable background and motives who introduced teachings that NO Christian has ever believed in the 2000 years of Christian history (again, I have material on this if you are interested). As you can see, this approach is based on reality and reliability. As applied to the overall subject of Truth, this is just one issue, but you get the idea. 

When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth", he didn't really want to know, but was simply going through the motions of being a sophisticated seeker of Truth. If you really want to know what the Truth is, you have to not just ask, but sincerely search for that Truth using your head as well as your heart. And it’s worth the hard work you put into it because it is always better to be in the Truth than not. The Truth makes a person more confident and less anxious and, no matter what their condition in life is, it fills their life with freedom and real joy. This is what I have found in my own life, and it is what I hope for you and everyone else. 

What is Sacrifice, Why is it Necessary, and Why Did Jesus Have to Die for Our Sins?

Hey, remember me? I can't believe it's been something like two years since I last posted something on this blog, but here I am. Other than having too many other irons in the fire and being overly tired by the time I have free time, I have no excuses. It's not for lack of ideas or desire, that's for sure.

What prompted my return to this particular corner of my blogosphere (I have another blog which you might know about, Sunday Scripture Study for Catholics), is the upcoming Solemnity of Corpus Christi (the Body and Blood of Christ) which celebrates the truth that Jesus Christ is truly present upon the Catholic (and Orthodox) altars of the world under the appearance of ordinary bread and wine. I was looking for a blog entry I thought I had done a few years ago in response to young niece of mine who had a question about sacrifice in general and the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross in particular. I didn't find it in my blog, so I decided to post it now.

Uncle Vince here!

[Your aunt] forwarded me some questions you had about some things that occurred to you at a recent retreat. These are really good questions, because (a) it shows you are thinking about important things and (b) because the particular questions you asked are important for understanding religion in general and our Catholic Faith in particular. I think I have some answers for you. You’ll need your or your Mom’s Bible for this so I’ll wait here while you run and get it.

Hmm hmm hmmm hmm…

Are you back? Good!

Let’s take the question about sacrifice first: why sacrifice?

The basic definition of a sacrifice is something you give up out of love. People give up many things for the benefit of those they love: parents sacrifice their time and money for their children, soldiers and firefighters may sacrifice their lives for others. This kind of sacrifice is an act of love.

Sometimes a sacrifice is made to make up for something wrong that they have done. Suppose a girl breaks a window with a baseball. The girl is caught and confesses, but the person whose window it is forgives her. However, it is only fair (or just) that the girl work (time) or find some way to help pay (with money) for the window. This kind of sacrifice is known as reparation, or paying what is owed.

But what does that have to do with sacrificing and God?

People seem to have an inborn sense that they should worship and sacrifice to God. If you look in the beginning of your Bible in Genesis chapter 4, verses 1 through 7, you will see the story of Cain and Abel. These were the very first people after Adam and Eve and they are already making sacrifices to God. In ancient times, people usually sacrificed animals because, since they didn’t use money yet, animals like cows and sheep represented wealth, plus the shedding of blood represented life and death.

Also, if you look toward the end of your Bible in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans in Chapter 1 verses 18 to 23 (also see Wisdom 13:1-9 in the middle of the Old Testament), Saint Paul tells us that all people everywhere are searching for God, but since many of them did not know the God of the Bible, they began to try to worship God the best they could. However, this led to a lot of false religions in the world that, even though they may have had some good about them, led them into wrong ideas about God. Some of these false religions went horribly wrong like the parts of Aztec and other civilizations that had human sacrifice and other terrible practices.

The Christian idea about sacrifice came out of sacrifices of the Old Testament which was the beginning of God’s revealing himself to his people. The Catholic Church teaches us that Jesus Christ came to end all these sacrifices which were only kind of image or preparation for his one, true sacrifice. But why did God choose to sacrifice His only son if He loved Him so much? This is the most important question of all.

Ever since the time of Adam and Eve (the parents and representatives of mankind) and the Original Sin (see Genesis, chapter 3) mankind has been separated from God, not only because of our first parent’s sin but because of all the sins committed by every person who ever lived on the earth. God created us to live with him in heaven forever but since none of us ourselves could possibly make reparation for all this sin that separates us from God (since God is infinitely Holy), God in his great mercy and love found a way.

God loved us so much that that is precisely why He chose his own Son to sacrifice himself on our behalf. Since Jesus was fully man (so he could represent us) and fully God (so that he offer such an infinite sacrifice) he was the only one who could do it. That is why we call him our Savior. All that is left for us to do is to place our faith in him and his sacrifice, be baptized, and follow his teachings everyday. That is why we call him Lord. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

When we go to Mass every Sunday, it is this very same sacrifice of Jesus (not a new one, but the same one) that is being re-presented on the altar under the appearance of bread and wine and which we have the privilege of participating in offering our worship and our daily lives. Just think: we are participating in the greatest sacrifice there ever was!

Sorry this answer is so long, but it is a good and important question and I wanted to give you the best answer I could. Please keep asking those good questions—and I will try to be less long winded!

Love,

Uncle Vince

How Can I bring My Fallen Away Catholic Family and Friends Back to the Church?

I have some friends who were born Catholic but who have left for evangelical churches. What are some ways I can nudge these friends to research Catholicism again? They seem to be happy where they are.

While it's primarily the work of the Holy Spirit and God's grace acting with a person's free will that ultimately brings them to conversion, there are still a lot of things you can do to be God's instrument in this.

.

If they belong to evangelical churches, they may or they may not be happy where they are. In order to make them take fresh look at the Church from an objective standpoint, you have to clearly show them two things:

[1] That there is something that the Catholic Church posseses that they can't get anywhere else, even in a local church community to which they may have some emotional attachment. There are a number of things that fall under this category: The Eucharist and the other Sacraments as means of grace; the Church's historical origin in Christ as well as her historical continuity; an authoritative, Christ given authority to interpret the Scriptures in contrast to the multitude of personal, often conflicting biblical interpretations; the profundity of the liturgy; a unified and clear teaching voice on moral issues; and so on.

To this end, you should be ready to answer any questions they might have about the Catholic Faith (just because they were raised Catholic, you should not assume they know the rudiments of the Faith--in fact, the opposite is probably true since many Catholics drift away precisely because they do not know the Faith, or possess a very young child's understanding of it.). This doesn't mean you need to be an expert in theology, Scripture, Church law and apologetics, but you should at least be able to answer their basic questions. If you don't know something they ask about, don't be afraid to say "I don't know, but I'll look it up and get back with you," then do it.

[2] That they would gain all the things they have at their non-Catholic church but at the same time they would not be losing anything essential if they left there and returned to the Catholic Church. This might be a little tricky if they consider some un-essentials to Christianity itself --such as warm fellowship, good musicians, childcare during services, easy availability of Bible studies, dynamic preaching, etc -- to be absolutely essential. In that case, you'd have to show them how -- nice and helpful as these things are -- they do not comprise the essence of being a Christian -- that is, the grace found in the Sacraments, being in full communion with the Church body established by Christ, the holy example and solicitude of the Saints, and the fullness of truth found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition-- which can only be found in the Catholic Church. Having said that, it's also true that you often can find many of those nice non-essentials in many (though, admittedly, not all) Catholic parishes.

The above, and your own example of a holy, Christian life (with lots of prayer, their own honesty and openess to the truth, and God's grace) will bring them home. Hope that helps. :)

"Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence": What Does It Mean?

One of the favorite hymns we like to sing in our parish men’s group is "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence," taken from the 5th century Liturgy of St. James. It is set to the harmony of the French carol, “Picardy” and is a universal favorite during Advent and Christmas. More than once, primarily because of the obscurity of some of the words in the song, the question has been asked “What is the song about and what does it mean?” This is my attempt to explain some of the more arcane features of the song:

In main, the song is primarily a song about the Incarnation (coming in human flesh) of Jesus Christ. From all eternity he was the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the pre-existent Logos (Word of God) as it speaks about in John 1:1-14. Jesus steps out of eternity to become a human being while remaining fully God.

Let all mortal flesh keep silence,

And with fear and trembling stand;

Ponder nothing earthly minded,

For with blessing in His hand,

Christ our God to earth descendeth,

Our full homage to demand.

All mortal flesh (we humans) should stand in awe of the fact that God has come to earth to become man. While thinking and meditating about this, all other (by comparison) unimportant matters should be pushed aside. Our God descended to earth to become one of us, while remaining God, to whom we owe worship!

King of kings, yet born of Mary,

As of old on earth He stood.

Lord of lords in human vesture,

In the body and the blood,

He will give to all the faithful

His own self for heavenly food.

Even though Christ is King of kings, Lord of lords and Creator of the universe, he came in human flesh as a baby, born to Mary. It is this same human flesh, now glorified, that he now gives us to consume in the Eucharist—The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Rank on rank the host of heaven

Spreads its vanguard on the way,

As the Light of light descendeth

From the realms of endless day,

That the pow'rs of hell may vanish

As the darkness clears away.

Rank on rank…hosts of heaven—the angels (the host of heaven) are pictured as forming a vanguard (a double line of soldiers lining the path of a person of high rank, like a king or a great conqueror) for Jesus as he descends to earth.
Light of light—Jesus is, as we say in the Creed ‘light from light’; that is, of the same substance of God.
Descendeth…from the realms of endless day—Jesus came down from heaven, where there is no night or no day (Revelation 21:22-25).
The reason Jesus came was to defeat the power of hell (of death) over us, so that we will not have to live in the darkness of sin any more.

At His feet the six-winged seraph,

Cherubim, with sleepless eye,

Veil their faces to the Presence,

As with ceaseless voice they cry,

Alleluia! Alleluia!Alleluia! Lord Most High.

The seraphim are a rank of angel. The name means ‘burning ones’ as they are thought to be the angels that stand closest to God in heaven, and so are burning with the intensity of God’s love and holiness. They are mentioned in the Bible, most notably in Isaiah, chapter 6. They are pictured there as having six wings—two of which are used to cover their eyes in the presence of God, who is too holy for even them to gaze fully upon.
The cherubim are another rank of angel. It was a cherubim that guarded the entrance to Paradise after Adam and Eve were cast out (Genesis 3:24). As a sentries, they never slept.
Alleluia is a combination of two Hebrew words, hallel, which means ‘praise,’ and a contracted form of the divine name Yah-weh, which the Jews avoided pronouncing. Together, it means ‘praise God.”

You can hear a midi version of this song here:

Question Box: Lost in a Labyrinth

I would be interested to find out the Catholic position on labyrinths. I had no trouble finding the Catholic position on other things like Jung, enneagram, centering prayer to name a few. But I couldn't find anything definitive on this topic. What does the Church teach?

Like a lot of subjects, the Catholic Church does not have an official position on labyrinths. For topics like this we have to use the witness of Tradition, fidelity to the teachings of the Church on similar subjects, and common sense.

Labyrinths appear in many very old Catholic churches in Europe, but their original use gets debated back and forth a quite a bit. One thing we can be sure of is that their original intent was not for some New Age or occultic purpose.

I don't know of any full length treatments of this on-line, but Catholic Answers has a short and to the point answer to the question in one of their "Quick Questions" columns from "This Rock" magazine. It works for me: hope it works for you too. God bless!

Q: Should Christians build prayer labyrinths? My child’s Catholic high school is considering building one.

A: In Christian spirituality, labyrinths originally symbolized the winding streets of Jerusalem, and walking in a labyrinth while praying Christian prayers was a form of virtual pilgrimage for medieval Christians who could not afford the expense and risk of an actual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. If the prayers said in a labyrinth are representative of authentic Christian spirituality and the purpose of the labyrinth is explained to those who will be using it, then the proposed labyrinth would not pose a problem. If, on the other hand, the prayers are representative of a non-Christian or an otherwise questionable spirituality, Catholics should not pray them and a Catholic high school should not promote it to its students.

What's the Difference Between the Honor We Give to Saints, and the Worship Given to God Alone?

This is a question that pops up from time to time in my discourses with Protestants (and even fellow Catholics). Since we just celebrated the feastday of St. Augustine, I will let him answer this since he does oh so better than I could. This reading is an excerpt from his treatise against Faustus and is used in the Roman Catholic Office of Readings:

We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves. No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you”, or “Paul, to you”, or “Cyprian, to you”. No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. We offer in the chapels where the bodies of those he crowned rest, so the memories that cling to those places will stir our emotions and encourage us to greater love both for the martyrs whom we can imitate and for God whose grace enables us to do so. So we venerate the martyrs with the same veneration of love and fellowship that we give to the holy men of God still with us. We sense that the hearts of these latter are just as ready to suffer death for the sake of the Gospel, and yet we feel more devotion toward those who have already emerged victorious from the struggle. We honour those who are fighting on the battlefield of this life here below, but we honour more confidently those who have already achieved the victor’s crown and live in heaven. But the veneration strictly called “worship”, or latria, that is, the special homage belonging only to the divinity, is something we give and teach others to give to God alone. The offering of a sacrifice belongs to worship in this sense (that is why those who sacrifice to idols are called idol-worshippers), and we neither make nor tell others to make any such offering to any martyr, any holy soul, or any angel. If anyone among us falls into this error, he is corrected with words of sound doctrine and must then either mend his ways or else be shunned. The saints themselves forbid anyone to offer them the worship they know is reserved for God, as is clear from the case of Paul and Barnabas. When the Lycaonians were so amazed by their miracles that they wanted to sacrifice to them as gods, the apostles tore their garments, declared that they were not gods, urged the people to believe them, and forbade them to worship them. Yet the truths we teach are one thing, the abuses thrust upon us are another. There are commandments that we are bound to give; there are breaches of them that we are commanded to correct, but until we correct them we must of necessity put up with them.

St. Augustine here clearly disguishes between devotion to and veration of the martyrs and saints, and the worship (Latreia) due to God alone. This distinction was clear to the early Christians, but abuses and misunderstandings certainly existed, as noted by this bishop of the late fourth century. Clearly, liturgical or ritual celebration of the memory of the saints through a eucharist celebrated at their tomb on the anniversary of their death, was already a long standing tradition by the time of St. Augustine (ca 400 AD).

Source: The Crossroads Initiative.

Question Box: What Does it Mean to Grow in Holiness?

Here is a question that I received from a friend after I sent out the following quote:

To sanctify yourself it is necessary for you to employ the means, — such as, to avoid evil occasions, to remain detached from earthly goods, to live a life recollected in God; and to maintain this, it is necessary to receive the sacraments frequently, to make your meditation, your spiritual reading, and to perform other devout exercises, everyday, otherwise it is impossible to preserve the spirit of fervour. St Alphonsus Ligouri

What does it mean for a Christian to "sanctify oneself"?

That’s a good question. To “sanctify one’s self” is just another way of saying “growing in holiness.” To grow in holiness, one can’t just live a life that only consists of random opportunities to live a godly life pleasing to the Lord, though that is something we should do. God expects us to strive for holiness:

You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Mt 5:48

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. Romans 6:19:22

Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification…For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. 1 Thes 4:1-8

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God 2 Cor 7:1

For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. 1Th 4:7

Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1Ti 2:15

Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Heb 12:14

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness. 2Pe 3:11

To positively grow in holiness, one must undertake a plan for holiness. This has nothing to do with piling up works and prayers, or going through the motions. It does, however, involve taking on the exercise of the moral virtues, those attributes that help a mature Christian exercise grow in holiness. Virtues are nothing more than good Christian habits—classically there are seven: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Temperance. Just as a Christian can grow in bad habits—called vices—he can also grow in these good spiritual habits, making it more difficult for him to sin and easier for him to do the right.

To grow in holiness, one also needs to develop a detachment from the world. This means not being attached to the fads, opinions, noise and hyperactivity of the prevailing culture. We should question seriously anything in our lives that leads us away from God. For example: do I neglect to pray because I can’t miss my favorite show, however innocent and even spiritually edifying it might be? Then my favorite show is drawing me away from God. If I can watch my show and pray, then that’s OK. Laypersons like ourselves can never grow completely detached from the world because we live in it everyday, but to the extent that we can, we should.

Speaking of prayer, we won’t grow in holiness without regular prayer. I know you know this, so I won’t belabor it, but we both know it isn’t an option for Christians.

We must leave ourselves open to and take advantage of opportunities for grace. Just being a Christian means, assuming we are in a state of sanctifying grace (i.e. not having any unrepented/unconfessed mortal sins) we have the Holy Spirit in us always, but there are special moments of actual grace that God showers on us. As a Catholic, of course, for me the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist and Confession) are means of grace since they are an encounter with Christ. For married persons, there are also the graces given in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Finally, one shouldn’t neglect spiritual reading like devotionals, lives of the saints, meditations, and especially the Scriptures. Just like our bodies are trained by the virtues and our hearts are softened by prayer, our minds must be fed with the wisdom of the saints, and the pure word of God.

Hope that helps. I found a good article by Mother Angelica of EWTN who talks about this very subject. Maybe this can be your spiritual reading for today!

You might also find the article "Grace: What It is and What it Does," from Catholic Answers, helpful as well.

Blessings,Vince

How Are We Saved?

A Protestant correspondent of mine wants to know: What do Catholics believe about salvation?

Believe it or not, "how we are saved" isn’t a subject that is emphasized as much among Catholics as it is in Protestant churches—it’s pretty much taken for granted by Catholics that the average layman doesn’t need to know the subject that much in depth. As a person who is involved in apologetics and teaches Adult RE, I can see the fruits of this mistaken attitude in that many Catholics cannot articulate the Church’s teaching on salvation. Many, in fact, end up leaving the Church convinced that the Church teaches a form of crass works-righteousness or a semi-Pelagianism. This isn’t helped by the fact that some of the churches they end up in have an equally distorted view of what Catholics believe and their erroneous misconceptions are reinforced. I was listening to a local Christian radio show recently in which a man was giving his testimony, saying he used to be a Catholic “but was now a Christian” and was happy he now didn’t have to worry about being “good enough” and “didn’t have to work his way to heaven.” He mentioned a lot of other things he said the Church taught that clearly pointed to the fact he was, if nothing else, a victim of poor catechesis.

On another level, I think it is possible to show that Catholics and Protestants don’t differ on this topic as much as people think they do. In the centuries since the Reformation, however, the terminology and teaching emphasis of each group has become so particular to each group, that, essentially, we are talking about the same thing but in different words! This is bound to be confusing in any conversation between Catholics and Protestants on this (or any other) subject, but in recent years there have been attempts by various groups to try to iron out the language difference, without smoothing over or ignoring real differences. I have two real good book recommendations: The first is by a Catholic, Jimmy Akin, and it is called The Salvation Controversy. The other is by an Evangelical Protestant named Mark Noll and is called Is The Reformation Over? Both of these books make the same point: that Catholics and Protestants have more in common than they think they do.

I think it’s also possible to make the argument that the original Reformers were not so much reacting against Church teaching on salvation, as they were against the poor catechesis and abuses of that particular time and place. If you look at what the Church really taught at that time (and not just the abuses) it essentially what the Church has always taught before then, and what it teaches now. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. (John 16:16; Jn 3:36; 6:40 et al). "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" (Dei Filius 3:DS 3012; cf. Mt 10:22; 24:13 and Heb 11:6; Council of Trent: DS 1532.)

Basically, the Church’s teaching is this: We are saved by grace alone, through faith. The Catholic understanding of faith includes both placing our trust in Christ AND obeying him—what St. Paul calls the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1 and 16). The Church teaches that everything having to do with our salvation is God’s grace. Even our original conversion is God’s initiative and an entirely unmerited gift of his grace—we cannot even take the first step without him. It is indeed 100% God’s work, but, respecting our free will, he allows us to cooperate in our own salvation through faith and charity.

Where works come in is as a response to God’s grace (obedience) and as a means to grow in sanctification. God sends us the grace (and the opportunity) to perform a good work. By being responsive to God’s grace, we please him because of our obedience, and grow in holiness. The holier we become, the less likely we are to fall into sin. Failure to respond to God’s grace is a failure to grow in holiness. If we continually refuse to respond to God’s graces, we run the risk of falling into serious sin. And, as you know, the Church teaches that if one dies in serious, unrepented sin, he cannot be admitted to heaven. It is important to remember that good works that are not done in faith and by God’s grace—on human power— do not avail anything. You do not get into heaven just by “being good.”

This is basically the place that works has in salvation: obedience and sanctification. The Church does not teach that salvation is attained by being “good enough” to get into heaven; it isn’t a “scale” that if you do more good works than bad you get in; we cannot put God in our debt by what we do. Here’s just one excerpt from the Catechism:

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

For a more in depth treatment of this, I’d highly recommend seeing the sections in the Catechism that addresses this subject (Sections 142—165; 1987—2029). Here is an article from Catholic Answers that may also be helpful:

Grace: What It Is and What It Does

http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

Is Friday Penance Required?

Recently the question has come up in my personal circle as to whether we are obliged, as Catholics, to either abstain from eating meat on Fridays that do not fall during the liturgical season of Lent or, lacking that, substitute some other form of penance (i.e., act of sacrifice or self denial).

As it turns out, according to the U.S. bishops, Catholics in this country are no longer strictly required to perfom any type of penance at all on ordinary Fridays, although we are strongly exhorted to to so in that Friday remains "a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind, which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ crucified." (On Penance and Abstinence, U.S. Catholic Bishops, dated November 18, 1966). Here is a brief article about the subject from Catholic Answers, as well as a link to On Penance and Abstinence:

Is Friday Penance Required?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp

On Penance and Abstinence
http://www.usccb.org/lent/2008/Penance_and_Abstinence.pdf

So should we abstain from meat on Fridays outside of Lent? Interestingly, the U.S. bishops came out with a more recent exhortation on this issue (in the context of what we as Catholics can do to promote peace in the world) that seems to signal a move back to meatless Fridays as something approaching a norm. Perhaps they were finding that if there are no clearly defined norms in this area, people often end up doing nothing at all:

Since 1966, the American bishops have repeated the call to observe Friday as a day of penance. In a 1983 pastoral letter, they wrote: "As a tangible sign of our need and desire to do penance we, for the cause of peace, commit ourselves to fast and abstinence on each Friday of the year. We call upon our people voluntarily to do penance on Friday by eating less food and by abstaining from meat. [my emphasis] This return to a traditional practice of penance, once well observed in the U.S. Church, should be accompanied by works of charity and service toward our neighbors. Every Friday should be a day significantly devoted to prayer, penance, and almsgiving for peace." (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, no. 298. Source: Daily Penance, Days of Penance, Catholics United for the Faith, http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=277)

What's my opinion? I think that as Catholics, we have fallen over ourselves trying to fit in with the predominant culture. Sometimes this is approriate, if it doesn't lead to compromise or being complicit in sin. But isn't the essence of Christianity to be in the world but not of it? Aside from the no-brainer of the example of everyday personal holiness, shouldn't we stand out as different as a body of believers? Isn't it lazy, black and white thinking that says just because something is a law it necessarily becomes legalistic?

I think that when we lost the requirement for Friday abstinence we lost something that was something distinctive to us as Catholics. Even as a child growing up in public school (but being raised in a non-practicing family) in the 1960's, I remember the school cafeteria always offered fish sticks on Fridays as an option for Catholics. Everyone had an idea of who was probably Catholic --which was even more incentive for Catholics to provide a good Christian witness.

Historian Eamon Duffy has an interesting observation on this in his book, Faith of Our Fathers:

Catholics shared that rhythm with most of the world's great religious traditions, a fact which ought to have suggested that there was something essential about fasting not only for our specific identities as Catholic Christians, but as religious beings and human beings. But since 1967 what was once a truly corporate observance, reminding us of the passion of Christ, of our own spiritual poverty and, even more concretely, of the material poverty of most of the human race, reminding us what it was like to be hungry, has become another individual consumer choice, like going on a diet. Though we pay liturgical lip-service to the old dialectic, and still nominally observe Lent, in practice all our time now has become "ordinary time," and there is nothing in this respect to distinguish Catholics from anyone else.

Yet religious communities depend on the differentiation provided by such shared observances to sustain their identities. The long and noble pilgrimage of Israel through a multitude of cultures and times, without a temple, without a priesthood, has been possible, at least in part, because of the unifying and sustaining effect of their dietary laws. The Jews knew who they were because of what they did and did not eat. Christian fasting and abstinence did not, of course, spring from a ritual distinction between clean and unclean meats, but it was just as deeply embedded in theological conviction as the older dispensation. Its abandonment was not therefore a simple change in devotional habit, but the signal of a radical discontinuity in the tradition and a decisive shift in theological perception.

The theological and practical shift represented by this abandonment of an ancient part of the tradition was not merely a matter of theological emphasis, and more, too, than a question of whether ascetical exercises like fasting are good for the character. What was also at stake was the Church's prophetic integrity: its claim to solidarity with the poor. Considered from this perspective, compulsory fasting and abstinence, practiced regularly, routinely, and in common, was a recognition by the Church that identification with the poor and hungry, with those who know themselves to be needy before God because they were needy among men, is not an option for Catholics, but a necessary and definitive sign of their redemption, as essential in its way as attendance at Mass. The Church has always linked personal asceticism and the search for holiness with this demand for mercy and justice to the poor; the Lenten trilogy of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving is both fundamental and structural. By making fasting and abstinence optional, the Church forfeited one of its most eloquent prophetic signs. There is a world of difference between a private devotional gesture, the action of the specially pious, and the prophetic witness of the whole community--the matter-of-fact witness, repeated week by week, that to be Christian is to stand among the needy.

What was striking about the instructions issued by the English bishops in abolishing compulsory Friday abstinence in 1967 was the total absence of any attempt to explain the power and meaning of the traditional observances. The American bishops did much better: while also making the matter optional, they offered a powerful and sympathetic discussion of the religious reasons for the old observance and urged American Catholics to continue the practice as a gesture of solidarity with, and gratitude for, the passion of Christ, as an act of fidelity to the Christian past, and to help "preserve a saving and necessary difference from the spirit of the world." In total contrast, the English bishops recited the problems and inconveniences surrounding abstinence. Many people, they pointed out, have their main meal at work, in a canteen; social events are often arranged for Fridays; abstinence therefore put Catholics in an awkward position. As the bishops wrote: "While an alternative dish is often available, it is questioned whether it is advisable in our mixed society for a Catholic to appear singular in this matter. Non-Catholics know and accept that we do not eat meat on Fridays, but often they do not understand why we do not, and in consequence regard us as odd."

This misses the point. The whole rationale of symbolic gestures requires that they disrupt and disturb the secular order. Their power to witness--not only to others but to ourselves--comes precisely from their awkwardness. The abolition of such observances strikes at the heart of tradition, the distinctive language of belief. Catholic value cannot be sustained without its proper symbolic expression. Spiritual needs are expressed in physical needs. People can know the fundamental neediness which is the foundation of faith only if they feel our involvement with those who fast because they have nothing to eat.

Is Drinking Alcohol Sinful?

Here is a question I got from someone who wrote from Nigeria named Daniel.

Greetings from Nigeria. Perhaps you can answer a question for me. Someone from one of the local Baptist churches told me it is always a sin to drink alcohol. What does the Catholic Church teach?

God bless you,

Daniel in Nigeria

Hi Daniel in Nigeria - Greetings from Arizona, USA:

Like many other things --playing games of chance, eating nice food, relaxing, etc -- drinking alcohol, in itself, is not sinful. However, it is when we abuse these things -- indulging in them to excess or letting it affect our judgement, health or other responsibilities -- is when it becomes harmful and possibly sinful.

The Bible does not teach that we are to refrain from all alcohol. Here is an answer given by apologists at "Catholic Answers" to this question:

Q: A Baptist told me that Jesus never drank wine and neither should any Christian. He said that Jesus actually drank unfermented grape juice, or new wine. What does the Bible say?

A: Jesus had no qualms about drinking wine, and even miraculously produced 150 gallons of it at the wedding feast of Cana. This was clearly alcoholic wine, since it was described by the major domo of the event as the "best wine," which he explained was normally brought out at the beginning of wedding feasts until the guests had lost their taste. Non-alcoholic wine does not cause one to lose one’s taste; thus the "best wine"—the kind that Jesus produced—was alcoholic (John 2:10).The Greek word for wine is oinos, and this is the wine shared at the Last Supper. During the Passover meal, Jesus and his apostles would have consumed several cups of wine, and any Jew today can verify that it is not grape juice that one consumes during a Passover meal.Though your Baptist friend may object that Jesus only drank new wine, Acts 2:13 indicates that new wine can cause drunkenness—whereas grape juice cannot.Scripture never condemns the moderate use of alcohol, though drunkenness and addiction is forbidden (1 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:3). In fact, Scripture even recommends that alcohol be consumed on occasion: "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Tim. 5:23). In an age in which modern water purification methods and food storage techniques were unknown, the antiseptic effect of alcoholic wine could play a significant role in preventing gastroenteritis (non-alcoholic wine would not have this effect). Paul thus counseled Timothy to take advantage of its medicinal benefits.In the Old Testament, the evidence is even more explicit: "Give strong drink to him who is perishing and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more" (Prov. 31:6).

In discussing the disposition of tithes, the book of Deuteronomy tells us that if one lives too far from Jerusalem then one should convert the tithe to money and the "go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice" (Deut. 14:25–26). Again, even if "wine" were somehow non-alcoholic, "strong drink" is unambiguously not.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005qq.asp

Also, here is a longer article from the same source on the same subject:http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203chap.asp

So, although we are not to be drunkards or overindulge, it is not forbidden for Christians to occasionally and in moderation drink alcohol. Another factor to consider, however, is that of bad example or scandal. While it may be OK for you to have a drink because you personally do not tend to slip into excess, you should refrain from drinking around others who are not so strong, or struggle against alcohol abuse or excess in their own lives. This is a matter of charity.

Hope that helps, Daniel. :)

May God bless you and your family.

Did Jesus "Become Sin" For Us?

A friend of mine asked the following question:

I have a question for you…
One of my Born Again friends sent a facebook message out saying Jesus was sin… I answered with Jesus is NOT sin. She answered with read 2 Corinth. 5:21. I am confused: could you explain? She also said that’s why we do not need reconciliation or we would be slapping Jesus across the face…..Thanks!

Your friend sounds like she has been taught to interpret this verse in an over-literalistic manner (as opposed to the proper literal sense, by which we mean we interpret it in the manner in which the original writer -- in this case St. Paul -- intended it).

In context (verses 5:17 to 6:2), Paul is urging the Corinthians to turn away from their sins and be reconciled to God (more on this later). Here is the verse in question, 2 Corinthians 5:21:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

If this were the only passage in the New Testament that talks about Christ and sin, she might have a point. However, we can't take passages or verses in isolation (this is called "proof texting"); we have to compare what Paul says here with what he says in similar passages. For example, if we look at Romans 8:3, we find this:

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

This clarifies the issue quite a bit, since we see that St. Paul's thought on this is, not that Jesus actually became sin or sinful but that he took on the likeness of our sinful flesh, in everything BUT sin. To see how ludicrous the very idea of Jesus literally "being sin" we can also look at Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22 and 1 John 3:5 and see that Jesus had nothing to do with sin.

Her second point your friend makes has kind of an irony to it, since the passges immediately preceding the verse she cited are all about being reconciled to God. Keep in mind these are Christians Paul is talking to. He is descibing himself as a "minister of reconciliation" and begs the the Corinthians to "be reconciled to God." How are they going to do this if they do not confess their sins? And what does it mean for Paul to be "a minister of reconciliation"? Could it not possibly mean that he would be the one to hear these confessions? (This last point is probably too much for your fundamentalist friend to handle at this point, but this and other biblical arguments for the Sacrament of Reconciliation are very strong). For more information about Reconciliation and Confession, here are some links:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea2.asp

Where she might be coming from is the place that many biblical fundamentalists come from and that is the unbiblical notion that Jesus has forgiven our sins -- not only past, but present, and future. That being the case, there would be no reason for us to confess our sins, the argument goes, because these sins are already forgiven.

But again go back to the fact that the New Testament was addressed to practicing and "saved" Christians. That being the case, then why do the New Testament writers frequently command them to confess their sins?? Here is but one example, from James 5:14-16:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

Anyway, I hope that's helpful. :)