Baptizing the dead?

The question of the Mormon practice of proxy baptism of the dead came up in response to 1 Corinthians 15:29 at the chapter retreat on Saturday. Below follows Marilyn Wilde's excellent commentary after looking into the Greek.

Q: Is St. Paul is giving evidence for the Mormon practice of baptism by proxy for the dead when he says: “Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?” (1 Cor 15:29)

A: The Greek does not say that people are baptized in the place of the dead -- it says they are baptized for the sake of Old Man Death. The preposition used is "Hypo" which literally means "under" like Hypodermic -- under the skin. When it takes an abstract noun in the genitive case -- the case used in this instance it personifies the abstract noun. If Paul had meant what Joseph Smith said he meant, he would have used the preposition "hyper" which literally means over, i.e. hyperactive; and one of its many figurative meanings is "instead of" or "in the place of."

Marilyn Wylde, Bl. Margaret of Castello Chapter

All is not all

There are those outside the sheepfold of Jesus Christ who attack the sinlessness of Mary, perverting very words of Holy Scripture, to wit:

All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God [Romans 3:23]

It not being enough to point out that all cannot be inclusive of every single one, lest one deny the sinlesness of Jesus Christ, who was without sin [Heb 4:15]. Yet even with the clear fact that the biblical "All" is a subset of the common use of "All" which means every single person, they object that Jesus can be excluded because, well, He's Jesus! and that exclusion can't possibly belong to anyone else who is a mere mortal.

Well, that's a lot to read into a text that, in their system, is supposed to be clear on the surface of it! So here's another little example whereby we can see if All is everyone or not (incarnate Godhead excluded):

Consider the battle of Jericho, after the walls came down, the Israelites put all the defeated to death, right? They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and asses. [Joshua 6:21] So, did they kill everyone? They were supposed to spare Rahab and her family; on Joshua's orders (Joshua is the Greek of Jesus), everyone was to die, except only the harlot Rahab and all who are in the house with her are to be spared [Joshua 6:17]. So was there an oversight, and putting to the sword all living creatures did they fail to observe Joshua's orders? We see that is not the case, for after the battle they entered and brought out Rahab, with her father, mother, brothers, and all her kin. [6:22-23]

so you see, dear friends, biblically speaking, all is not everyone at all!

The Church Considered as a Divine Creation

Excerpted from The Invitation Heeded, (Pg. 109ff) by James Kent Stone (also here).

Part II, Chapter I
The Incarnation and the mission of the Holy Ghost

The loftiest of the ancient philosophers confessed the incompetence of reason to determine spiritual truth, and looked forward, with an instinct of prophetic anticipation, to the advent of a god who might remove uncertainty by the word of divine authority (Plato in Epinomide). It is time for Protestants to ask themselves whether they are any better off that Plato was. For them, a God has come – and gone. The Divine Word walks the earth no more; and for the ascertaining of truth it is as if he had never descended from heaven. Christianity has furnished many new and glorious ideas, so novel indeed and so beautiful that men call it a revelation. But when we come to sift the meaning of this expression, it only signifies that a new domain of speculation has been thrown open, in which the human intellect may wander up and down, and admire – and doubt. The relation of truth to reason, the appeal to which it makes to the mind, is the same now as before. The reception of what are called Christian doctrines is simply the assent of the understanding to propositions the truth of which appears probable (As Chillingworth has not only admitted, but endeavored to prove).

Men have what they call faith. But it is evident that this belief is only a number of opinions, more or less strong, and differing from any other intellectual judgments only in this, that they are of such a nature as to excite emotion, suggest comfort, and inspire hope. The very hope thus awakened in the mind is of a sort which shows the character of the belief from which it springs; for it is a looking anxiously forward – I am speaking, be it remembered, of protestants – to a future state, in which present doubt shall be exchanged for knowledge, and the mists of uncertainty be dissolved in the effulgence of light. This is in effect precisely what Plato did. ‘And exactly what St. Paul did,’ you quickly exclaim. Ah, dear friend, how clearly, if you could only see it, this very appeal of yours shows how utterly you have failed to comprehend the nature of Catholic faith! You quote St. Paul as if he had said, ‘Now I doubt, but then shall I know.’ St. Paul was a Catholic, and he spoke as a Catholic. And his words were: “NOW I KNOW” – I know now, and I shall know then; the assurance is the same, the measure of cognition alone is different; “now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known.”

[…]

If the Lord Jesus Christ were to come back to us, in the glory of his majesty, how quickly would we cease our dogmatizing, and hush our disputings. With one accord we would exclaim, ‘the Messsias is come, and he will teach us all things.’ Dear friend, he is here now; he is here today in the midst of us, radiant with the irresistible tokens of divinity, addressing us in awful tones of authority; in the person of his Church he comes and lays his hand upon you, and says, “I that speak unto thee am he.”

This is not a fiction of speech. It is no bold metaphor. The Church is the voice of God, speaking to the world now as it spoke eighteen hundred years ago. The God whose possible coming was dimly conceived by the intuition of the Greek philosopher has actually come. And has the meaning of that advent ever shown in upon your mind? Have you ever apprehended, have you even begun to apprehend, the appalling fact of he Incarnation? The infinite, eternal God brought himself within bounds; he took upon him a reasonable soul and human flesh; he suffered death as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; he created a Church, and built it upon a rock, and said, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;” he chose his representatives, an in words of omnipotence he invested them with their awful commission; to one of them he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to all of them he said: “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven;” he breathed upon them, saying, “receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained;” he pronounced upon them those sentences of unutterable import: “as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you:” “he that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me:” “all power is given to me in heaven and in earth: go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

Protestant scholar's words

ALthough published in 1870, this remains remarkably cogent for today:

"Only superficial minds, that disdain the study of documents, and are blinded by the pretended superiority of our epoch, or by systematic hatred, dare accuse the Church of having favored ignorance"

Protestant historian Frederick Hurter, History of Innocent III, book xxi, quoted in The Invitation Heeded, by James Kent Stone

If anyone wants to read Hurter in the French, and has 55 eu to part with...

HURTER, F.E.Histoire du pape Innocent III et de son siècle,
d'après les monuments originaux. Traduction nouvelle, augmentée d'une introduction, de notes historiques et de pièces justificatives, par L'Abbé Jager et Th. Vial. Tome I-II. Paris, A. Vaton & Gaume Frères, 1840. [iv],xxxvi,792; [iv],852p. 2 vols. 8vo. 21x13 cm. Later library binding. Good copy. Interesting history of Innocent III (ca 1160-1216), champion for the freedom of the church against the kings & striving for peace for the people, by F.E.Hurter (1787-1857) official historiographer of the Austrian empire.

The Gospel according to Fred

One of our chapter members has been engaged in an email discussion with a Baptist whom I will call “Fred,” who has written extensively and with presumed authority, establishing rules by which the Holy Scriptures are to be understood. This is just a look at a corner of

The Gospel according to Fred:

I do depend with my heart upon that great Teacher that Jesus promised would lead the dedicated, studious, and committed child of God into "all truth," (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7-16)!

Looking at this statement using Fred's rule; “consider every passage under these guidelines: Who is talking, who is being taught”

14:16. And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you

another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

14:17. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,

because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall

know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in

you.

In Fred’s first citation, Jesus is speaking, the Apostles are being spoken to. Here is a record of a promise made to them (the Apostles) forever, which in the Church for almost 2000 years has been continuously interpreted to mean “the Apostles and their successors.” Fred has chosen to interpret it to mean the promise is made to the “dedicated, studious, and committed child of God” This is an interpretation completely without support in the text. In fact, the condition applied is not being studious or dedicated or committed, but “keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15).

15:26. But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you

from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from

the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Jesus is speaking, the Apostles are present, and to them He makes a promise. In order to apply this to ourselves, we have to insert an interpretation into these words. No where is there a clear statement that the “dedicated, studious, and committed child of God” will be led “into all truth” Fred has made an leap from the Apostles to himself, and then from “testimony of me” to “all truth”

Fred’s last leap is even more extensive (Jn 16:7-16).

16:12. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot

bear them now.

16:13. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will

teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but

what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the

things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Jesus is clearly speaking to the Apostles. Fred believes he personally is being taught that he is in possession of the Holy Spirit’s personal guidance into all truth (John 16:13) rather than there are many things which he, Fred, cannot bear (John 16:12). We can test this, as John has elsewhere instructed us to (1 Jn 4:1) when spirits are claimed.

Now, if Fred is lead by the Holy Spirit to “all truth,” then because Truth is Truth, and Truth is One, there will be agreement in Truth between Fred and every other Christian (actually and in fact) led by the Holy Spirit to “all truth.” If there is disagreement between those who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit to Truth, then one or both are in error, having not yet arrived at truth. Since I can easily find a Christian making the same claims as Fred, and yet disagreeing with him, how am I to tell the difference? Who really has the truth, and who is in error?

The bible bears testimony of the place to find the answer, although Fred rejects it because Fred does not really believe the bible, Fred believes what he thinks the bible means.

1 Tim 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou

oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is

the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the

truth.

Loaves and fishes - miracle or not?

For those who have had to sit through a homily which proposed that no miracle occurred in feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and two fishes, here is Steve Ray's answer, which was published in This Rock, January 2008.

Loaves and Fishes
Fashionable Priests and the "Miracle of Sharing"
By Steve Ray

One Sunday I visited a parish in another city and learned something new. The multiplication of loaves didn’t really happen. The greedy people following Jesus in the wilderness had loaves and fishes stuffed up under their robes. The disciples didn’t know about this surplus of hidden food, but this parish priest did!

Although the priest said he was taught in seminary that Jesus kept pulling bread and fish out of the basket, he learned the real truth from the natives in Mexico. They taught him that the Gospel writers misunderstood what really happened. What really happened is that Jesus preached to the crowd about caring and sharing and they responded by bringing out food from under their robes that they had been hiding from each other. Once everyone learned how to share, there was plenty for everyone with twelve basketfuls left over.

The story was told with great humor and passion, but the denial of the miraculous and the undermining of the clear intent of Scripture was accomplished nonetheless. And in the course of telling a good story, the priest actually placed the onus of this false teaching in the laps of the poor people in Mexico.

Unhappily, this priest is not alone in his misunderstanding. It seems this interpretation has quite a following. I’ve read it in books and magazines, and I’ve heard it in other homilies. For some theologians and priests, the real miracle was not the multiplication of loaves, but the act of caring. Jesus was able to convince selfish people to share: the real miracle.

Let’s take a look at a few of the many problems with this interpretation. There are six accounts of feeding the multitudes given in the Gospels (See "Read the Different Accounts" on page 24). Jesus fed the people on at least two occasions—once 5,000 men and another time 4,000 men; once with five loaves and two fish and again with seven loaves and a few fish; once with twelve baskets of remaining bread and in another five baskets.

Was Jesus Unaware of Custom?

Jesus and the disciples knew the people and the customs of the times. If it was customary for people to carry hidden food under their robes, Jesus and the disciples would have known. But Jesus and his disciples—unlike this "wiser-than-Jesus" priest—didn’t realize there was a hidden treasure of food.

The Twelve came to Jesus and made a request. They needed food to feed hungry people, or they needed to send them away. They never mentioned or taught anything about hidden food and sharing. Are we to believe that if Jesus intended the message to be about sharing that at least one of the writers would not have stated so or shared the homily Jesus preached about sharing?

Rather, three of the Gospel writers say "Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place." The priest seemed to know something the disciples were totally oblivious to—there was plenty of food and no one needed to go into town to find food. Silly disciples!

Jesus and the disciples knew there was no abundance of bread hiding in secret picnic baskets. As St. Jerome said, "Wherein he calls the apostles to breaking of bread, that the greatness of the miracle might be more evident by their testimony that they [the people] had none [no food]" (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, I.2).

But if that is not enough, let’s look carefully at the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:32: "Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way’" (cf. Mark 8:2-4).

Jesus states clearly that the people had been with him in the deserted area for three days. Even if they had originally brought hidden food, it would have been eaten over the three days of being in the wilderness. Jesus clearly stated that they had no food.

It doesn’t seem likely that Jesus was completely ignorant of the situation and was mistaken in thinking the people were really hungry. We can’t believe that Jesus knew there was plenty of hidden food and was just lying about the situation to make a point. Why should I believe what a priest says rather than what Jesus says?

Where’s the Sharing Lesson?

The line goes something like this: "The people had plenty of food but they were hoarding it. Jesus taught them to share so they all pulled out their surplus of food from under their robes and everyone shared with his neighbor. That is the lesson! Jesus did not do a physical miracle; the real miracle was convincing selfish people to share with others."

But read the Gospel accounts of the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and see if you can find even a hint of this "sharing interpretation." Nothing is said about Jesus teaching the crowds at this point, much less that he taught them about sharing. Scripture never mentions or even hints that Jesus exhorted everyone to pull up their robes to reveal their hidden stashes of food. In fact it is never even implied.

Except for the Resurrection, the multiplication of loaves is the only miracle told in all four Gospels. It was considered important enough to include in all four. And here we come to the next big problem. If these events were so important, why do the writers not offer the slightest clue that sharing was the primary import of the event?

Interestingly, Jesus does not address the crowd at all. He speaks only to his disciples. The dialogue goes on between Jesus and his disciples. The only time the crowd is addressed is when they are told to sit down in groups—not to teach them generosity. So, where are we told that Jesus taught them about sharing? If he did teach them to share their hidden food, why did the Gospel writers fail to inform us—in six separate accounts? If this was the main point of the story, shouldn’t it show up at least once?

Where Did It Come From?

Matthew informs us about two separate occasions of feeding the multitudes (Matt. 14 and 15). Matthew 15:36 makes it clear what happened and where the miraculous bread came from. It came from the hands of Jesus, not the people. Matthew writes "[Jesus] took the seven loaves and the fish; and giving thanks, he broke them and started giving them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people."

Is there any indication here that the bread just appeared among the crowd and kept growing as everyone pulled out food and began to share? Did the "multiplication" begin from the hands of the people to the mouths of their neighbor? Of course not. Nor did the bread start appearing first in the hands of the generous crowd and move to the hands of the disciples then to the hands of Jesus. It was the other way around. It went from the hands of Jesus who took, blessed, broke, and gave it into the hands of the disciples, who passed it to the people.

As St. Jerome affirmed, "The multitude receives the food from the Lord through the apostles; as it follows, and he gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude" (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, I.2).

It took a lot of bread and fish to feed 10,000–20,000 people or more. (Jesus fed 5,000 men on one occasion, not counting women and children. Add one woman and one child for each man and you already are at 15,000.) The fragments of bread left over filled many baskets. The Gospel writers even say the remaining bread represented a "superabundance." What was the source of the remaining superabundance? Had the remaining fragments come from the picnic baskets? Or were the fragments left over from the loaves blessed and multiplied by Jesus? Here is what John says:

So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. Therefore when the people saw the sign which he had performed, they said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world." (John 6:13-14)

The people had seen a supernatural miracle (John refers to supernatural miracles as "signs" throughout his Gospel), so they declared that he was "truly the Prophet who is to come" (based on Deut. 18:15-18). And seeing the miracle they wanted to make Jesus the king (John 6:15).

Jesus, the New Moses

In the Gospels Jesus is presented as the New Moses. At the Transfiguration (interestingly, right after the miracle of the loaves and fishes), Jesus meets Moses on the mountain. They talk about his "exodus" soon to take place. Moses had led the first Exodus, passing through the Red Sea (baptism, 1 Cor. 10:1-4), and then providing miraculous bread in the wilderness (just as Jesus gave the bread in the wilderness and the Eucharist for our journey). Jesus is now the new Moses on a mountain, with a shining face, engulfed in a cloud and leading an exodus—all referring back to Moses on the mountain of Sinai.

When the miracle of the multiplication of loaves is told in the Gospel of John, it is immediately related to the manna in the wilderness. The people saw the connection between Moses and Jesus, the manna and the miraculous bread. Jesus was the Prophet who had been promised. The people wanted to make him a king, not because he taught selfish people to share, but because he had done a stupendous miracle like their ancestors had seen in the wilderness of Sinai.

Since the two events are tied together—especially by John—then we could ask, was the manna really a miracle in the wilderness of Sinai or had Moses simply taught the people to share? Did the Israelites all sneak out of their tents at night to scatter manna around the desert? Had they been hoarding manna in their tents or under their robes?

I don’t think so. God had performed a genuine, certifiable miracle and the people knew it. And they knew it with Jesus too.

As the new Moses, Jesus could do no less than the Moses of old. The people would not have been impressed with anything less than a stupendous miracle. And impressed they were! Look at their reaction: They tried to make Jesus a king. If he had just given a lesson on generosity, they would have gone around patting each other on the back—they would have been the heroes, the ones to receive praise for sharing. But they had seen the miraculous, supernatural hand of God. Jesus was the Prophet promised by God and they wanted him to be king.

The Number of Perfection

John’s Gospel is a masterful composition constructed with intricate detail that holds together like a gorgeous tapestry. He opens with "the Word was God" and concludes with "My Lord and my God." Everything in between proves the divinity of Jesus. John describes seven miracles which he calls signs. He even numbers the first two signs to encourage us to keep counting. The seven are these:

1. changing water into wine,
2. healing the official’s son,
3. healing the cripple at Bethesda,
4. walking on water,
5. multiplying loaves,
6. healing the blind man, and
7. raising Lazarus from the dead.

On the eighth day, the start of a new week, he rises from the dead—the eighth miracle/sign which shows a new beginning on the eighth day. These signs point to the divinity of our Lord. He uses seven because that is the number of perfection—seven days, seven sacraments, etc. When God makes an oath in Hebrew, it is literally "God sevens himself." John’s use of seven signs is remarkable. To delete one of the miracles and say it is just a "caring, sharing" moment among people in the crowd is to destroy the symmetry John weaves into his Gospel. You end up with six miracles, and in Scripture six is the number of man and incompleteness.

Violating Scripture in one place has the effect of a ball of yarn rolling down a hill. It begins to unravel everything and to do violence to the fabric of the Scriptures and the faith.

Who Do You Believe?

Each Gospel account of the feeding the thousands was intended to report a divine miracle. In other words, the four Gospel writers did not set out deceive their readers. If, however, we accept what these homilists propose, denying the miraculous in these stories, then we are accusing the eyewitness Gospel writers of one of two things: 1) being ignorant of what really happened, or 2) deliberating trying to deceive their readers.

Even if it were not a miraculous multiplication of loaves, the writers thought it was miraculous and wrote to inform us that they had seen what they thought was a miracle. And those reading the accounts thought the writers intended to report a real miracle. Eyewitnesses were still alive when the Gospel accounts were written. If there had been no miracle, they would have scoffed at the New Testament writings and exposed them as lies.

And believing Jesus actually performed a miracle was not just the universal belief of the early Church. For 2,000 years, readers have believed not only that the writers intended to relay their eyewitness account of a miracle but that Jesus actually performed such a miracle.

What actually happened in the wilderness long ago? There are only three options: 1) there was no miracle, only "sharing"—the Gospel writers were ignorant and just thought it was actually a miracle; 2) there was no miracle, only "sharing" and the writers conspired to deceive their readers into thinking it was a miracle; or 3) it was a miracle, and the Gospel writers reported it accurately.

The correct option is not as complicated as some people seem to think. We must also remember that as the Second Vatican Council taught in Dei Verbum that all that the Scripture writers affirm as true is without error. The passage about the multiplication of the loaves and fish certainly affirms a miracle.

Do You Not Yet Understand?

It seems like Jesus is asking this question again, this time to those who stray from the truth and fail to listen and understand. Listen to what Jesus says in the context of the multiplication of the loaves:

And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread." And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve." "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven." And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" (Mark 8:16-21)

---

Steve Ray is the author of Crossing the Tiber, Upon This Rock, and St. John’s Gospel. He is also co-author of Catholic Answers’ Papacy learning guide. You may contact him through his Web site, www.catholicconvert.com.

nasty little gods

in "A New Song for the Lord," (1996) Cardinal Ratzinger addresses the question of Jesus "Who do you say that I am?" the answer to this underlies all of today's problems, but in addressing this as it relates to things like drug addiction, he speaks of the promises the world holds out in contrast to the promise of Life the Lord holds;

Behind this (the flight into lies) is a false image of God, that is, the denial of God and the worship of an idol. Here one understands God as the rich man did, who could not hand over anything to Lazarus because he himself wanted to be a god; for this, however, the much he had was still too little. God is thus understood in the manner of Arius who thought that God cannot have any relationship outside of himself because only he is completely himself. Humans want to be such a god, one to whom everhting flows and who gives nothing himself. This is why the true God is the real enemy, the competitor of those who have become inwardly blind in such a way.

There is something that this hits upon, especially when dealing with addictions; that we are made in God's image for love, and because of this each of us will invariably attach to a love, only One of which we are meant for. The others will close us in on ourselves; the lesser loves which the world provides for our distraction.

Now to the one who wishes to be like the false image of God, sufficient unto themselves, belongs the one who does this not just in the material domain (like the rich man who would not aid Lazarus), but also the one who lives by the notion of sola scriptura, that the scriptures are all he needs to guide his life. The very fact that this person is blind to the difference between what it means to be authoritative and to have and wield authority. Yes the scriptures are authoritative, they are the rule, the measure; but the ruler must measure the wood, and no ruler has ever told a board that it is too long or too short; that judgement belongs to the one who wields the ruler. In denying that Jesus gave the wielding of the ruler to anyone, the sola scripturist wields it without acknowledging he does so, arrogating to himself what he denies to those who claim said authority. Is this reasonable? What has the sola-scripturist measured? If we look at their collected measurements, we see that the rule of scripture has been applied with wild abandon and there is no agreement; the board cannot be both too short and too long at the same time; something cannot be necessary and unnecessary at the same time, something cannot simultaneously be true and false; God is not the author of confusion, Truth is not both true and false at the same time. Yet, the sola scripturist is satisfied in his little world, self sufficient unto himself, passing judgement based on his understanding of the rule while denying at the same time that he does so, claiming that it is the rule itself doing the judgment, an absurdity, and a witness to absurdity which discredits God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that He was sent by the Father.

This is why I have borrowed Belloc from Real Clear Religion and put it at the bottom of the sidebar. Methodist minister and talk show host Alan Hunt has entered the Catholic Church, you can't determine what is true by voting on it. It is the Lord work, that those who crucified him would later drink his blood; that Saul would join Stephen, that those who still would crucify the Lord, will join the company in heaven by being converted here and seeking Mercy while Mercy is to be had.




sorry if this is a little jumbled, mercy, ok?

The eternal Sacrifice

This is from today's Office of Readings:

From the commentary on the psalms by Saint John Fisher, bishop and martyr (Ps 129)

Our High priest is Christ Jesus, our sacrifice is his precious body which he immolated on the altar of the cross for the salvation of all men.

The blood that was poured out for our redemption was not that of goats or calves (as in the old law) but that of the most innocent lamb, Christ Jesus our Savior.

The temple in which our high priest offered sacrifice was not one made by hands but build by the power of God alone. For he shed his blood in the sight of the world, a temple fashioned by the hand of God alone.

This temple, however, has two parts. The first is the earth, which we now inhabit. The second is as yet unknown to us morals.

Christ first offered sacrifice here on earth, when he underwent his most bitter death. Then, clothed in the new garment of immortality, with his own blood he entered into the holy of holies, that is, into heaven. There he also displayed before the throne of the heavenly Father that blood of immeasurable price which he had poured out seven times on behalf of all men subject to sin.

This sacrifice is so pleasing and acceptable to God that as soon as he has seen it he must immediately have pity on us and extend clemency to all who are truly repentant.

Moreover, it is eternal. It is offered not only each year (as with the Jews) but also each day for our consolation, and indeed at every hour and moment as well, so that we may have the strongest reason for comfort. That is why the Apostle adds: He has secured an eternal redemption. (Hb 9:12)

All who have embarked on true contrition and penance for the sins they have committed, and are firmly resolved not to commit sins again for the future but to persevere constantly in that pursuit of virtues which they have now begun, all these become sharers in this holy and eternal sacrifice.

St. John sets this before us in these words: My little children, I am writing this to you so that you many not sin. But if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for those of the whole world.

It is interesting to note here that St. John Fisher equates "eternal redemption" to the continuous offering of the mass till the end of time.

Defining "Protestantism"

There is a protestant response to the Catholic's charge of a lack of a body of truth to guide a believer that responds with "we disagree about non-essentials, but agree on essentials." Thus, the mark of the truth needed for salvation, by their own rule, is universal agreement on the essential truth(s) of faith. However, when you attempt to catalogue "essentials" with complete agreement among all protestants, there is a problem, because there are always some who deny this or that, leaving only one constant essential between all of them:

"Not Catholic"

You can lead this horse to water, but rather than drink, he usually comes back with "But we agree on essentials..."

Now I see that the obvious has long been obvious; here's James Cardinal Gibbons in "The Faith of our Fathers" in the chapter on the perpetuity of the church:

A remark of De Maistre is worth quoting: "If Protestantism bears always the same name, though its belief has been perpetually shifting, it is because its name is purely negative, and means only the denial of Catholicity, so that the less it believes, and the more it protests, the more consistently Protestant it will be. Since, then, its name becomes continually truer, it must subsist until it perishes, just as an ulcer disappears with the last atom of the flesh which it has been eating away."

There is something almost current in his description of the rise and fall of Arianism:

The Arian schism, soon after its rise, spread rapidly through Europe, Northern Africa, and portions of Asia. It received the support of immense multitudes, and flourished for awhile under the fostering care of several successive emperors. Catholic Bishops were banished from their sees, and their places were filled by Arian intruders. The Church which survived the sword of Paganism, seemed for awhile to yield to the poison of Arianism. But after a shor career of prosperity, this gigantic sect became weakened by intestine divisions, and was finally swept away by other erros which cam following in its footsteps.

One does not have to stretch the immagination too hard to see the "now" in this description.

---

...and now for something completely different, Will writes:

Did I mention this is the biggest grass hut in the world? It's about as tall as a four story building. The picture I'm sending now is me and Davis (a teacher at the Anglican school. He was my ride today) sitting in front of a shrine where four generations of Bugandan kings are buried.


This kings were interesting characters. One of them killed 22 Catholics (now saints, I think you've told me about them before [St. Charles Lwanga and companions, martyrs of Uganda]) because he was scared the "Kingdom of Heaven" would overtake his kingdom! And these guys were polygamists who would put fundamentalist Mormons to shame. One had 112 wives and 136 kids (oh, the nagging!). The most conservative one of the four still had 32 wives and had one kid with each wife. The tour guide jokingly called this 'family planning'. Which reminds me, with all that McLovin going around these guys have lots of ancestors, and all of the tour guides are descendants of these kings.

Faith of our Fathers

My thanks to "Marmion" who posted the link in the com box for the online version of Faith of our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons.

INTRODUCTION.

MY DEAR READER. Perhaps this is the first time in your life that you have handled a book in which the doctrines of the Catholic Church are expounded by one of her own sons. You have, no doubt, heard and read many things regarding our Church ; but has not your information come from teachers justly liable to suspicion ? You asked for bread and they gave you a stone. You asked for fish and they reached you a serpent. Instead of the bread of truth, they extended to you the serpent of falsehood. Hence, without intending to be unjust, is not your mind biased against us because you listened to false witnesses? This, at least, is the case with thousands of my countrymen whom I have met in the brief course of my missionary career. The Catholic Church is persistently misrepresented by the most powerful vehicles of information.

She is attacked in romances of the stamp of Maria Monk ; in pictorials, like Harper s ; in histories, so called like those of Peter Parley. In a large portion of the press, and in pamphlets, and especially in the pulpit, which should be consecrated to truth and charity, she is the victim of the foulest slanders,

11



12 INTRODUCTION.

Upon her fair and heavenly brow her enemies out a hideous mask, and in that guise they exhibit her to the insults and mockery of the public ; just as Jesus, her spouse, was treated when He was clothed with a scarlet cloak and crowned with thorns, and, thus disfigured, was mocked by a thoughtless rabble. They are afraid to tell the truth of her, for

"Truth has such a face and such a mien
As to be loved needs only to be seen." *

It is not uncommon for a dialogue like the following to take place between a Protestant Minister and a convert to the Catholic Church.

MINISTER. You cannot deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches gross errors, the worship of images, for instance.

CONVERT. I admit no such charge, for I have been taught no such doctrines.

MINISTER. But the priest who instructed you, did not teach you all. He held back some points which he knew would be objectionable to you.

CONVERT. He withheld nothing; for I am in possession of books treating fully of all Catholic doctrines.

MINISTER. Deluded soul! Don t you know that in Europe they are taught differently?

1 DRYDEN. Hind and Panther.



INTRODUCTION. 13

CONVERT. That cannot be, for, the Church teaches the same creed all over the world, and most of the doctrinal books which I read, were originally published in Europe.

Yet ministers who make these slanderous statements are surprised if we feel indignant, and accuse us of being too sensitive. We have been vilified so long, that they think we have no right to complain.

We cannot exaggerate the offence of those who thus wilfully malign the Church. There is a commandment which says : " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

If it is a sin to bear false testimony against one individual, how can we characterize the crime of those who calumniate two hundred and twenty-five millions of human beings, by attributing to them doc trines and practices which they repudiate and abhor?

I do not wonder that the Church is hated by those who learn what she is, from her enemies. It is natural for an honest man to loathe an institution whose history he believes to be marked by blood shed, crime, and fraud.

Had I been educated as they were, and surrounded by an atmosphere hostile to the Church, perhaps I should be unfortunate enough to be breathing vengeance against her to-day, instead of consecrating my life to her defence.



14 INTRODUCTION.

It is not of their hostility that I complain, but because the judgment they have formed of her is based upon the reckless assertions of her enemies, and not upon those of impartial witnesses.

Suppose that I wanted to obtain a correct estimate of the Southern people, would it be fair in me to select, as my only sources of information, certain Northern and Eastern periodicals which, during our civil war, were bitterly opposed to the race and institutions of the South? Those papers have represented you as men who always appeal to the sword and pistol, instead of the law, to vindicate your private grievances. They heaped accusations against you which I will not here repeat.

Instead of taking these publications as the basis of my information, it was my duty to come among you ; to live with you ; to read your lives by studying your public and private character. This I have done, and I here cheerfully bear witness to your many excellent traits of mind and heart.

Now I ask you to give to the Catholic Church the same measure of fairness which you reasonably demand of me when judging of Southern character. Ask not her enemies what she is, for tfeey are blinded by passion ; ask not her ungrateful, renegade children ; for you never heard a son speaking well of the mother whom he had abandoned and despised.



INTRODUCTION. 15

Study her history in the pages of truth. Examine her creed. Read her authorized catechisms and doctrinal books. You will find them every where on the shelves of booksellers, in the libraries of her clergy, on the tables of Catholic families.

There is no Freemasonry in the Catholic Church ; she has no secrets to keep back. She has not one set of doctrines for Bishops and Priests, and another for the laity. She has not one creed for the initiated and another for outsiders. Everything in the
Catholic Church is open and above board. She has the same doctrines for all for the Pope and the peasant.

Should not I be better qualified to present to you the Church s creed than the unfriendly witnesses whom I have mentioned ?

I have imbibed her doctrine with my mother's milk. I have made her history and theology the study of my life. What motive can I have in misleading you ? Not temporal reward, since I seek not your money, but your soul, for which Jesus Christ died. I could not hope for an eternal reward by deceiving you, for I would thereby purchase for my self eternal condemnation, by gaining proselytes at the expense of truth.

This, friendly reader, is my only motive. I feel, in the depth of my heart, that, in possessing Catholic


1 INTRODUCTION.

faith, I hold a treasure compared with which all things earthly are but dross. Instead of wishing to bury this treasure in my breast, I long to share it with you, especially as I lose no part of my spiritual riches by communicating them to others.

It is to me a duty and a labor of love to speak the truth concerning my venerable Mother, especially as she is so much maligned in our days. Were a tithe of the accusations true which are brought against her, I would not be attached to her ministry, nor even to her communion, for a single day. I know these charges to be false. The longer I know her, the more I admire and venerate her. Every day she develops before me new spiritual charms.

Ah ! my dear friend, if you saw her as her children see her, she would no longer appear to you as typified by the woman of Babylon, but she would be revealed to you, " Bright as the sun, fair as the moon ; " with the beauty of heaven stamped upon her brow, glorious "as an army in battle array." You would love her, you would cling to her and embrace her. With her children, you would rise up in reverence " and call her blessed."

Consider what you lose and what you gain in embracing the Catholic religion.

Your loss is nothing in comparison with your gain. You do not surrender your manhood or your dignity



INTRODUCTION. 17

or independence or reasoning powers. You give up none of those revealed truths which you may possess already. The only restraint imposed upon you is the restraint of the Gospel, and to this you will not reasonably object.

You gain everything that is worth having. You acquire a full and connected knowledge of God's revelation. You get possession of the whole truth as it is in Jesus. You no longer see it in fragments, but reflected before you in all its beauty, as in a polished mirror. Your knowledge of the truth is net only complete and harmonious, but it becomes fixed and steady. You exchange opinion for certainty. You are no longer " tossed about by every wind of doctrine," but you are firmly grounded on the rock of truth. Then you enjoy that profound peace which springs from the conscious possession of the truth.

And in coming to the Church, you are not entering a strange place, but you are returning to your Father s home. The house and furniture may look odd to you. But it is just the same as your forefathers left it three hundred years ago. In coming back to the Church, you worship where your fathers worshipped before you; you kneel before the altar at which they knelt; you receive the Sacraments which they received, and respect the authority of the clergy whom they venerated. You come back like the Prodigal Son to the home of your Father




18 INTRODUCTION.

and Mother, and the garment of joy is placed upon you, and the banquet of love is set before you, and you receive the kiss of peace as a pledge of your filiation and adoption. One hearty embrace of your tender Mother will compensate you for all the sacrifices you may have made, and you will exclaim with the penitent Augustine : " Too late have I known thee, O Beauty, ever ancient and ever new ; too late have I loved thee."

Should the perusal of this book bring one soul to the knowledge of the Church, my labor will be amply rewarded.

Remember that nothing is so essential as the salvation of your immortal soul ; " for what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? " l Let not, therefore, the fear of offending friends and relatives, nor the persecution of men, nor the loss of earthly possessions, nor any other temporal calamity, deter you from investigating and embracing the true religion. " For our present tribulation, which is momentary and light, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory." 3

May God give you light to see the truth, and, having seen it, may He give you courage and strength to follow it.

1 Matt. xvi. 26. II. Cor. iv. 17.

If you made it this far, do you not see how this introduction, with very little work, could be changed from an address to the American protestants of the 19th century, to an address to the CINOs of the current disordered time?

Against the trivialization of error

There is a school of thought, not confined just to protestantism, which holds that it if faith in Jesus that is important and dogmatic adherance to a creed is not. Setting aside for a moment the contradiction between being saved by a faith in which the contents of said faith don't matter, what has Scripture to say?

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. 2 Pt 15-17 (Friday, OOR, 34th week in Ordinary Time)

It seems clear that as faith is necessary for salvation, one can follow error into destruction. Hence the necessity for the Church's infallibility; for we are judged in adherance to Truth, and thus we must know with certainty what that Truth is. A restatement of;

I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live: And that thou mayst love the Lord thy God, and obey his voice, and adhere to him (for he is thy life, and the length of thy days,) that thou mayst dwell in the land, for which the Lord swore to thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he would give it them. Dt 30:19-20

Hear his voice, for faith comes by hearing. Rm 10:17

He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Lk 10:16

What can I say? see what he says: SPE SALVI

On faith

FAITH - REJECTING ARTICLE OF.

"To reject any article of the faith is to reject the faith itself. This is like pulling one stone out of an arch; it is like putting one hole in the hull of a ship. The whole arch tumbles down; the whole ship sinks. A man who has the faith, accepts God's word. Now, God's word has been set up the Church as man's infallible teacher and guide. If a man, therefore, rejects one article of the faith, and says that he believes all the other articles, he believes this by his own choice and opinion, not by faith. Rejecting one article of the faith, he rejects the whole authority of the Church, and he rejects the authority of God which has set up and authorize the Church to teach truth. Hence, it is entirely incorrect to say that a man may have lifeless or formless fith in some articles of the Creed while he rejects others; such a man has not the faith at all, living or lifeless.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa, IIa IIae, Qq 5

Archbishop Chaput on Citizenship and Evangelization

A must read...

"We're Better Americans by Being More Truly Catholic"

NEW YORK, NOV. 5, 2007 (Zenit) - Here is the address Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered Oct. 26 at St. John's University School of Law in Queens, New York. The talked is titled "Church and State Today: What Belongs to Caesar, and What Doesn't."

read the rest here

hat tip to Doc

Submission to the Church by Faith.

A SYSTEMATIC STUDY of the CATHOLIC RELIGION
BY REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S. J. IMPRIMATUR. S. Ludovici, die 19. Aug. 1903.
†JOANNES J. GLENNON, Coadj. Adm. Dioceseos S. Ludovici.

CHAPTER VIII.

Submission to the Church by Faith.

117. According to all that has been explained and proved so far, the Catholic Church claims and makes good her claim, to be the Church that Christ has established, the continuation of the Apostolic body that Christ commissioned, saying: “Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. last verses); “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark XVI, 16). Every one to whom this claim of the Catholic Church is properly presented is obliged in conscience to accept her teaching (n. 73), with the alternative that, if he do not, he shall be condemned.

The evidence of this obligation is so strong that, to an unprejudiced mind, a fully sufficient motive is thus presented for yielding assent. Such assent is therefore highly reasonable, and the refusal to yield it is a refusal to accept the properly accredited messenger of God. When a messenger comes from an earthly sovereign, even though some doubt should rest on the genuineness of his credentials, it is not the part of wisdom to begin by rejecting him, and refuse him entrance into a city or state: the presumption is in his favor; and he is to be treated with honor, while everything is done that is possible to remove the doubt. Thus also, if any reasonable doubt remain in the mind of an earnest inquirer concerning the claim of the Catholic Church to be the Heaven-appointed teacher of religion, it is his duty--in this case an all-important duty--to pray for light, and seriously to investigate the matter till all reason of doubt be removed. To wait till the evidence of the claim become of its own power so overwhelming as to compel assent, is like asking for a special miracle, or Divine manifestation, as the Jews and as Herod did of Christ, and did in vain (Matt. XII; Luke XXIII, 8). Faith is a free assent; else it were not meritorious; it does not require sight, as Christ declared to St. Thomas, “Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed” (Jo. XX, 29). It is much to be feared that many to-day, in our own land, are repeating the mistake made by the Jews in the days when Christ was upon earth; they wait for special signs, and refuse to accept those given to all the world (Matt. XII, 39).

118. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebr. XI, 6): All forms of Christianity agree in recognizing the supreme importance of faith; but they differ very much, one from another, in the explanations that they give upon the matter (n. 361, I, II).

The English word “faith”, representing almost invariably the Greek πιστος and the Latin fides, occurs very frequently in the New Testament. The meaning of these words and of their derivatives is constant, and is equivalent to “certain judgment”, either in general, or, more specially, “certain belief on the testimony of another”; when this other is God, we have Divine Faith. It is an act of the intellect, not excluding the influence of the will. The Vatican Council says: “Faith is a supernatural virtue, through which, by the influence and with the aid of the grace of God, we believe that the things which He has revealed are true,--not because of their intrinsic truth seen by the light of reason, but on the authority of God Himself, who has given the revelation, who cannot be deceived nor deceive”.

A variety of erroneous meanings have been attached to the word “faith” or “belief”; many Protestants confound it with “confidence”, especially in connection with their doctrine on justification. True it seems we might substitute “confidence” for “faith” in some texts, as in St. Matthew XV, 28, “O woman, great is thy faith”; for her confidence was the outcome of her belief in Christ's goodness and power. But in other texts the meaning of confidence is wholly out of place; for instance in the words of St. Paul: “If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised Him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. X. 9).

119. Since faith is a supernatural virtue (n. 118), an act of faith requires the aid of Divine grace, both to give further light to our intellect and strength to our will, and also to raise the act to a supernatural dignity, capable of attaining a supernatural end. But all men receive, either proximately or remotely, the grace necessary to attain their end, and therefore the grace to believe. When this is obtained and complied with, the act of faith is commanded by the will and elicited by the judgment, both will and judgment being elevated by grace. “I believe, because I will to believe; and I will to believe, because I have realized that it is reasonable and right to believe.” Inquiry as to the motive can go back no farther.

After the act of faith is duly elicited, there results the certainty of faith. This certainty is much greater than would naturally result from the motives of credibility that were considered before the assent was given; for it is strengthened by the Divine light of grace, which enables us to accept the formal motive of faith, the authority of God speaking to us. The certainty of faith is the greatest that man can have in this life; in the next life it will be changed into vision. Nor is it necessary that the motives of credibility possess in themselves great logical force; the grace of God can supply the want of evidence. The nature and weight of these motives will vary infinitely with the variety of ability and attainments of different men. Whatever one sees to be sufficient to remove prudent misgivings from his mind is enough for him; it makes the matter credible. The rude and simple, and the young readily believe what is told them by those whom they trust.

When doubts occur regarding the faith, the Catholic, on his own principles, is not at liberty to suspend his belief, even provisionally, in order to institute an inquiry; for he can see no solid reasons for doing so. But one who is not a Catholic is bound to inquire when he sees reasons to doubt; and even to embrace a new doctrine, when he understands that this is the safer course.

120. In thus submitting to the teaching of the infallible Church, we do no injury to our reason. On the contrary, reason itself has helped us to find the Heaven-appointed guide, who is commissioned to instruct us further. By believing, we only acknowledge the limitation of our reason, and our need of God's aid to refuse to do so would be the sin of pride. Such refusal is indeed against the dictate of reason. For even in natural matters, all men habitually guide their conduct by their faith in mysteries, which neither they nor their fellows understand; for instance, no man on earth can explain fully how a message is carried by electricity; how much less can we understand the hidden things of God? All students of natural sciences accept the teachings of their professors, while some of them disdain to receive the teachings of the infallible representative of God. Faith assists reason by supplying it with many safe points of departure, useful in its study of natural knowledge; and reason assists faith by investigating the “motives of credibility”, and clearing up cases of apparent conflict between revealed and naturally acquired knowledge.

A SYSTEMATIC STUDY of the CATHOLIC RELIGION

A SYSTEMATIC STUDY of the CATHOLIC RELIGION
BY REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S. J. IMPRIMATUR. S. Ludovici, die 19. Aug. 1903.
†JOANNES J. GLENNON, Coadj. Adm. Dioceseos S. Ludovici.

72. Yet this importance attached to the true doctrine by Christ, by the Apostles, and by their successors throughout all ages, would be unintelligible and unreasonable if we had no certain means of knowing what the true doctrine is. Now we cannot have such means unless the Church be endowed with infallibility in her teaching (n. 99). Therefore she must be infallible. For no one can pretend that the Scriptures are so clear as to decide all doubts concerning the faith, even on matters of the gravest importance; for instance, on the necessity of Baptism for infants, or on the meaning of the words, “Amen, amen, I say to you; Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you, shall not have life in you” (Jo. VI, 54). And who is to decide for certain what is and what is not of importance? Is every one to judge for himself? If so, why the words of St. Peter warning us that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. III, 16)? The fact is, those who pretend to draw their faith from the Scriptures are divided into more than three hundred sects, and in each sect there is much difference of opinion;--some members of the English Church call that holy which others in the same Church call an abomination. All this shows that the Scriptures are not sufficient to guarantee the truth of doctrine. Some Protestants suppose that the Holy Ghost teaches each pious reader of the Bible the true meaning of the inspired pages. If this were so, not two such readers would disagree; their faith would be concordant, which is not the case.

Besides, we have shown most clearly that the provision made by Christ for the perpetuity of His true doctrine is the institution of His Church (nn. 44-46). Therefore she must teach without error. Let us briefly sum up the proofs of her infallibility.

1. God could not bid us hear the Church if she could decide against the truth; and yet He bids us hear her (Matt. XVIII, 17).

2. He could not condemn a man for refusing to believe a false doctrine; and yet He says, “He that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark XVI, 16). Therefore the doctrine which we are to believe cannot be false.

3. Christ promised to be with His Church till the end of time. Now this expression “to be with” occurs in ninety places in the Scriptures, and uniformly means “to give success;” but for a teaching body to err in doctrine would not be success but failure.

4. The Spirit of truth is to teach her all the truth and to abide with her forever (Jo. XIV, 16; XVI, 13).

5. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against her” (Matt. XVI, 18). If she erred, the gates of hell would prevail.

6. St. Paul calls her, “The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth” (1. Tim. III, 15).

7. The Church has claimed infallibility from the beginning; for the Council of Jerusalem issued its decree as proceeding from the Holy Spirit: “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us” (Acts XV, 28). Nor should it be supposed that this claim was made in the name of the Apostles only; for it is distinctly stated that the decree proceeded from the Apostles and the “Ancients” (πρεσβυτεροι), which name designated the bishops and priests.

8. It has ever been the practice of the Church to separate from her communion all who refused to believe her doctrine; and this separation has always been considered as the greatest evil, so that St. Augustine said “A Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the Church of Christ; for if he be separated from the Church of Christ, he is not a member of Christ.” All this certainly supposes that the Church cannot teach a false doctrine, and this is meant by saying she is infallible (n. 99).

To answer objections against the holiness of the Church, we must remember that an institution is to be judged by the effects of its action on those members who are imbued with its spirit, not on those who are impervious to its influence. (88)

A SYSTEMATIC STUDY of the CATHOLIC RELIGION

I have finished reading Whittaker Chambers' "Witness" and have started reading a book which has been on my list for a while; it has a lot of really good points from perspectives I haven't heard articulated before; for example, in the quote that follows, I have heard the Sabbath and Canon arguments (Nos 5 & 6) before, but not the others.

A SYSTEMATIC STUDY of the CATHOLIC RELIGION
BY REV. CHARLES COPPENS, S. J.
IMPRIMATUR.
S. Ludovici, die 19. Aug. 1903.
†JOANNES J. GLENNON,
Coadj.
Adm. Dioceseos S. Ludovici.

65. Though Protestants put the Scripture as the rule of faith, as a matter of fact they receive the tenets of their belief from their preachers and parents. Hence it has come to pass that many doctrines are accepted by most of them which are not capable of proof from the Scripture alone. Such are the following:

1. Infant Baptism, which however is so very important (n. 239).

2. The discarding of the washing of feet as a sacred rite essential to salvation, and yet Christ washed the feet of His disciples and said to St. Peter, “If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with Me,” and He added, “You ought also to wash one another's feet” (Jo. XIII, 8, 14).

3. The lawfulness of eating blood; and yet this practice was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Dent. XII, 23); and the Apostles in a circular letter insisted on the prohibition (Acts XV, 20).

4. The lawfulness of swearing; though Christ said, “I say to you not to swear at all” (Matt. V, 34); and St. James, “Above all things swear not” (V, 12).

5. The substitution of the Lord's day, the first day of the week, for the Sabbath, the last day. All that the Scriptures say is that some Christians met for worship on the first day, not that this was a substitute for the Sabbath.

6. The very canon of the Scripture itself is nowhere found in the Scripture; it can only be accepted on some authority other than that of the Scripture.

The end of dialogue

Romano Amerio, Iota Unum
154. The end of dialogue, Paul VI

From the Catholic’s point of view, the end of dialogue cannot be heuristic, since he is in possession of religious truth, not in search of it. Nor can it be eristic, that is, aimed at winning the argument for its own sake, since its motive and goal is charity. True dialogue is aimed at demonstrating a truth, at producing a conviction in another person, and ultimately at conversion. This was clearly taught by Paul VI in his speech of 27 June 1968: “It is not enough to draw close to others, to talk to them, to assure them of our trust and to seek their good. One must also take steps to convert them. One must preach to get them to come back. One must try to incorporate them into the divine plan, that is one and unique.” This is a very important papal utterance, because the Pope was expressly talking about ecumenical dialogue.

Amerio on capital punishment

As promised, from Romano Amerio, in Iota Unum, on capital punishment.

This is a bit long, but it is worth a read...

Chapter XXVI
THE DEATH PENALTY
187. The death penalty.

Certain social institutions derive from the principles of the natural law and as such are perpetual in one form or another; for example the state, the family, a priesthood of some sort; and there are others that arise from a certain level of reflection on those principles and from historical circumstances, and which are abandoned when thought moves on to another level or when circumstances change; for example slavery. Until recently, the death penalty was philosophically defended, and used in practice by all countries as the ultimate penalty society imposes on evildoers, with the threefold aim of righting the balance of justice, defending society against attack, and dissuading others from wrongdoing.

The legitimacy of capital punishment is usually grounded on two propositions. First: society has a right to defend itself; second: this defense involves using all necessary means. Capital punishment is included in the second proposition on condition that taking the life of one member of the body of society is genuinely necessary for the wellbeing of the whole.

The growing tendency to mitigate punishments of all sorts is in part the product of the Gospel spirit of clemency and mercy, which has always been at odds down the centuries with savage judicial customs. With a certain degree of confusion that we need not go into here, the Church has always drawn back from blood. It should be remembered that canon law traditionally decreed the “irregularity,” that is the banning from holy orders, not only of executioners, but of judges who condemned people to death in the ordinary course of law, and even of advocates and witnesses in trials that led to someone being put to death.

The controversy does not turn on society’s right to defend itself; that is the undeniable premise of any penal code, but rather on the genuineness of the need to remove the offender altogether in order to effect that defense, which is the minor premise involved. From St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Taperelli d’Azeglio, the traditional teaching is that the decision as to the necessity and legitimacy of capital punishment depends on historical circumstances, that is, on the urgency of the need to hold society together in the face of the disruptive behavior of individuals who attack the common good. From Beccaria onwards, proposals to abolish capital punishment have admitted the major premise, and allowed that the minor one depends on historical circumstances, since they allow the execution of offenders in some emergencies, such as war. During the last war, even Switzerland sentenced and shot seventeen people guilty of high treason.

188. Opposition to the death penalty.

Opposition to the death penalty stems from two diverse and incompatible sets of reasons, and can only be evaluated in the light of the moral assumptions on which it is based. Horror at a crime can coexist with sympathy for human weakness, and with a sense of the human freedom that renders a man capable of rising from any fall as long as his life lasts; hence opposition to the death penalty. But opposition can also stem from the notion that every person is inviolable inasmuch as he is a self-conscious subject living out his life in the world; as if temporal life were an end in itself that could not be suppressed without frustrating the purpose of human existence. Although often thought of as religiously inspired, this second type of reason for rejecting capital punishment is in fact irreligious. It overlooks the fact that from a Christian point of view earthly life is not an end in itself, but a means to life’s moral goal, a goal that transcends the whole order of subordinate worldly goods. Therefore to take away a man’s life is by no means to take away the transcendent end for which he was born and which guarantees his true dignity. A man can propter vitam Vivendi perdere causas (for the sake of life, loose the causes of life) that is, he can make himself unworthy of life by taking temporal life as being itself the supreme good instead of a means to that good. There is therefore a mistake implicit in the second sort of objection to capital punishment, inasmuch as it assumes that in putting someone to death, other men or the state are cutting a criminal off from his destined goal, or depriving him of his last human end or taking away the possibility of his fulfilling his role as a human being. Just the opposite in fact. The condemned man is deprived of his earthly existence, but not of his goal. Naturally, a society that denies there is any future life and supposes there is a fundamental right to happiness in this world, must reject the death penalty as an injustice depriving man of his capacity to be happy. Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. The meaning of the motto engraved on the town executioner’s sword in Fribourg in Switzerland: Seigneur Dieu, tu es le juge (Lord God, Thou art the Judge), was not that human and divine justice were identical; it signified a recognition of that highest justice which sits in judgment on us all.

Another argument advanced is that capital punishment is useless as a deterrent; as witnessed by Caesar’s famous remark during the trial of the Cataline conspirators, to the effect that a death which put an end to the shame and misery of the criminals would be a lesser punishment than their remaining alive to bear them. This argument flies in the face of the juridical practice of pardoning people under sentence of death, as a favor, and is also refuted by the fact that even infamous criminals sometimes make pacts between themselves with death as the penalty for breaking the agreement. They thereby give a very apposite witness to the fact that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.

189. Doctrinal change in the Church.

An important change has occurred in the Church regarding the theology of punishment. We could cite the French bishops’ document that asserted in 1979 that the death penalty ought to be abolished in France as it was incompatible with the Gospel, the Canadian and American bishop’s statements on the matter, and the articles in the Ossevatore Romano calling for the abolition of the death penalty, as injurious to human dignity and contrary to the Gospel.

As to the biblical argument; even without accepting Baudelaire’s celebration of capital punishment as a supremely sacred and religious proceeding, once cannot cancel out the Old Testament’s decrees regarding the death penalty, by a mere stroke of the pen. Nor can canon law, still less the teaching of the New Testament, be can canceled out at a stroke. I am well aware that the famous passage in Romans (Rm 13:4) giving princes the ius gladii (the right use of the sword), and calling them the ministers of God to punish the wicked, has been emptied of meaning by the canons of the new hermeneutic, on the grounds that it is the product of a past set of historical circumstances. Pius XII however explicitly rejected that view, in a speech to Catholic jurists on 5 February 1955, and said that the passage of St. Paul was of permanent and universal value, because it refers to the essential foundation of penal authority and to its inherent purpose. In the Gospel, Christ indirectly sanctions capital punishment when he says it would be better for a man to be condemned to death by drowning than to commit the sin of scandal (Mt 18:6). From the Book of Acts (Acts 5:1-11) it seems the primitive Christian community had no objection to the death penalty, as Ananias and Sapphira are struck down when they appear before St. Peter guilty of fraud and lying at the expense of the brethren. Biblical commentaries tell us that the early Christians’ enemies though this sentence was harsh at the time.

The change in teaching is obvious on two points. In the new theology of punishment, justice is not considered, and the whole matter is made to turn on the usefulness of the penalty and its aptitude for bringing the guilty person back into society, as the saying goes. On this point, as on others, the new fangled view coincides with the utilitarianism preached by the Jacobins. The individual is held to be essentially independent; the state defends itself against a miscreant, but cannot punish him for breaking a moral law, that is, for being morally guilty. This guiltlessness of the guilty goes on to manifest itself in a reduced consideration for the victim and even in giving preference to the guilty over the innocent. In Sweden people who have been imprisoned are given preferential treatment in examinations for public employment, as compared with other, unconvicted, members of the public. Consideration for the victim is eclipsed by mercy for the wrongdoer. Mounting the steps to the guillotine, the borderer Buffet shouted his hope that he would “be the last man guillotined in France.” He should have shouted he hoped he would be the last murderer. The penalty for the offense seems more objectionable than the crime, and the victim is forgotten. The restoration of a moral order that has been violated by wrongdoing is rejected as if it were an act of vendetta. In fact it is something that justice demands and which must be pursued even if the harm done cannot be reversed and if the rehabilitation of the guilty party is impossible. The modern view also attacks even the validity of divine justice, which punishes the damned without there being any hope or possibility of amendment. The very idea of the redemption of the guilty is reduced to a piece of social engineering. According to the Osservatore Romano (6 Sept 1978), redemption consists in the awareness of a return to being useful to one’s fellows” and not, as the Catholic system would have it, in the detestation of one’s fault and a redirecting of the will back into conformity with the absolutes of the moral law.

To go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.

Attacking capital punishment, the Osservatore Romano (22 Jan 1977) asserts that where the wrongdoer is concerned “the community must allow him the possibility of purifying himself, of expiating his guilt, or freeing himself from evil; and capital punishment does not allow for this.” In so saying, the paper denies the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death. Remember too the conversion of condemned men at the hands of St. Joseph Carfasso; remember some of the letters of people condemned to death in the Resistance. Thanks to the ministry of the priest, stepping in between the judge and the executioner, the death penalty has often brought about wonderful moral changes, such as those of Niccolo de Tuldo, comforted by St. Catherine of Sienna who left an account of what happened in a famous letter of hers; or Felice Robol, assisted on the scaffold by Antonio Rosmini; or Martin Merino who tried to kill the Queen of Spain in 1852; or Jacques Fesch guillotined in 1957, whose letters from prison are a moving testimony to the spiritual perfection of one of God’s elect.

The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is Mors illata etiam pro criminibus aufert totam poenam pro criminibus debitam in alia vita, vel partem poenae secundum quantitatem culpae, patientiae et contritionis, non autem mors naturalis. (Summa, “Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.”) The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.

190. Inviolability of life. Essence of human dignity. Pius XII.

The leading argument in the new theology of punishment is however the one that asserts an inviolable and imprescriptible right to life, that is alleged allegedly infringed when the state imposes capital punishment. The article we have cited says: “To the modern conscience, which is open, and aware of human values and man’s centrality and primacy in the universe, and of his dignity and his inalienable and inviolable rights, the death penalty is repugnant as being an anti-human and barbarous measure”

Some facts might be helpful in replying to this article, which sums up in itself all the abolitionists’ arguments. The prominence the Osservatore Romano gives to the “modern conscience” is similar to the position accorded it by the French bishops’ document, which says le refus de la peine de mort correspond chez nos contemporains à un progrès accompli dans le respect de la vie humaine (“the rejection of the death penalty is an indication that our contemporaries have an increased respect for human life”). A remark of that sort is born of the bad mental habit of going along with fashionable ideas and of letting the wish become father to the thought; a crude rebuttal of such unrealistic assertions is provided by the atrocious slaughter of innocents perpetrated in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the widespread use of physical violence by despotic regimes as an ordinary means of government, the legitimation and imposition of abortion by changes to the law, and the increasing cruelty of delinquents and terrorists, who are only feebly resisted by governments. The axiological centrality of man in the universe will be discussed later.

In discussions on the death penalty, the difference between the rights of an innocent and a guilty man are generally ignored. The right to life is considered as if it were inherent in man’s mere existence when, in fact, it derives from his ordination to values that transcend temporal life, and this goal is built into his spirit inasmuch as it is an image of God. Although the goal is absolute and the image indelible, man’s freedom means that by a fault he can descend from that dignity and turn aside from his goal. The philosophical justification for penal law is precisely an axiological diminution, or shrinking in worth, on the part of a person who violates the moral order and who, by his fault, arouses society to some coercive action designed to repair the disorder. Those who base the imposition of penalties merely on the damage done to society, deprive penal law of any ethical character and turn it into a set of precautions against those who harm society, irrespective of whether they are acting freely or compulsively, rationally or irrationally. In the Catholic view, the penal system exists to ensure that the crime by which the delinquent sought some satisfaction or other in defiance of the moral law, is punished by some corresponding diminution of well-being, enjoyment or satisfaction. Without this moral retaliation, a punishment is merely a utilitarian reaction which indeed neglects the dignity of man and reduces justice to a purely materialistic level; such was the case in Greece when recourse was had to the Prytaneum, or city council, to pass sentence against rocks, trees or animals that had caused some damage. Human dignity is something built into the natural structure of rational creatures but which is elicited and made conscious by the activity of a good or bad will, and which increases or decreases within that order of being. No right thinking person would want to equate the human worth of the Jew in Auschwitz with that of his killer Eichmann, or St. Catherine of Alexandria with Thias the Alexandrian courtesan. A person’s worth can only be reduced by actions within the moral realm; and therefore, contrary to popular opinion, it cannot be measured by some level of participation in the benefits of technological progress: by a quote of economic welfare, by a level of literacy, by a better health service, by an abundance of the pleasures that life provided or by the stamping out of diseases. Let there be no confusion between an increase in a person’s dignity or worth, which is a moral quality, and an increase in the possessions of those utilitarian benefits which unworthy men also enjoy.

The death penalty, and any other form of punishment, if they are not to descend to the level of pure defense and a sort of selective slaughter, always presuppose a moral diminution in the person punished: there is therefore no infringement of an inviolable or imprescriptible right involved. Society is not depriving the guilty person of his rights; rather, as Pius XII taught in his speech of 14 Sept 1952 même quand I s’agit de l’exécution d’un condamné à mort, l’Etat ne dispose pas du droit de l’individu à la vie. Il est reserve alors au pouvoir public de priver le condamné du bien de la vie en expiation de sa faute après que par son crime il s’est déjà dépossedé de son droit à la vie (A.A.S., 1952, pp.779ff. “Even when it is a question of someone condemned to death, the state does not dispose of an individual’s right to life. It is then the task of public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life, in expiation of his fault, after he has already deprived himself of the right to life by his crime.”).

If one considers the parallel with one’s right to freedom, it becomes obvious that an innocent man’s right to life is indeed inviolable, whereas a guilty person has diminished his rights by the actions of his depraved will: the right to freedom is innate, inviolable and imprescriptible, but penal codes nonetheless recognize the legitimacy of depriving people of their liberty, even for life, as a punishment for crime, and all nations in fact adopt this practice. There is in fact no unconditional right to any of the goods of earthly life; the only truly inviolable right is the right to seek one’s ultimate goal, that is truth, virtue and eternal happiness, and the means necessary to acquire these. This right remains untouched even by the death penalty.

In conclusion, the death penalty, and indeed any kind of punishment, is illegitimate if one posits that the individual is independent of the moral law and ultimately of the civil law as well, thanks to the protection afforded by his own subjective moral code. Capital punishment comes to be regarded as barbarous in an irreligious society, that is shut within earthly horizons and which feels it has no right to deprive a man of the only good there is.

---

Anita (V-for Victory) passed along a link to Justice Scalia's article on the morality of capital punishment:

God’s Justice and Ours
by Antonin Scalia
Copyright (c) 2002 First Things (May 2002).

This is good companion reading to Romano Amerio's writing in Iota Unum. Justice Scalia makes the observation (which I had not seen before) that democracy has had the unfortunate consequence of (muddling our minds) so that we restrict the state from doing that which we are not able to do ourselves. The thought goes that as the state is an extension of the body politic, it has no rights other than those of the invididual member of the body politic posess and have delegated to the state. Not a very Catholic or Christian view of the state.

There is so much muddled thinking today, these two pieces deserve a careful reading.

---

observation added 4/28/09

1) If you look at the statistics for capital crimes and the number of executions in the United States, you will see that the prudential condition of "hardly, if ever" appears to be being met at this time, and for a long time prior to the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2) The argument against capital punishment based on the possibility of executing the innocent, taken to its logical conclusion, is an argument against all punishment for all crime. The proper response to that argument is the improvement of the legal system, not the abandonment of justice.

3) I find it odd that the majority of opponents of capital punishment seek to deprive the state of the use of lethal force upon the guilty after a careful and well controlled trial and appeal system, but seem to have no difficulty granting that same lethal force to all women be used with no restriction whatsoever upon the innocent whose only offense is that they yet to been born.