Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Trusting Christ through trusting Christ's Church

By Bryan Cross in Ecclesial Deism. This is an excerpt of an article, which I find to be one of the clearest expositions of this topic.

Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.

I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29 This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

As I began to grasp that, I began to grasp that my Church-less faith was too small. Apart from the Church, I had conceived of faith in Christ as something entirely inward. But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31

The difference between these two ways of understanding faith can be seen in this quotation from the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus:

[T]here are two kinds of Christians: those whom I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian is primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. There are those for whom the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church is one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Christ is the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Church, if there is one, is secondary, or tertiary, or somewhere down the line.32

The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between the Gnostic conception of the Church and the biblical conception of the Church as a living and hierarchically unified Body. When we come to see “the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church [as] one act of faith,” then we have to let go of ecclesial deism. In that respect ecclesial deism is a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion,’ a form of unbelief, a stance of doubt, and hence a defect in faith. But that does not mean that everyone holding some form of ecclesial deism is doing so because he or she consciously or culpably distrusts Christ. It may simply be because this person does not recognize or grasp what it is that Christ founded when He founded His Church. In the history of the Church, we can find this stance of doubt in the early heresies, including the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists. Their distrust expressed itself as distrusting the legitimate shepherds whom Christ had appointed to feed and govern His flock. But the Catholic exercises faith in Christ by trusting and serving those shepherds whom Christ has appointed and authorized to govern in His name. In doing so, the Catholic is not replacing faith in Christ with faith in the Church, but trusting in Christ precisely by and through trusting Christ’s Church.

Does this mean that we do not need to have a relationship with Christ Himself? Not at all. There are two possible errors here, like two vices in relation to a virtue. These two errors are possible with any sacrament, because every sacrament has both a material and formal principle, and either one can become the focus to the exclusion of the other. One error is the one discussed above, the Gnostic or Montanist error of disregarding the Church, as though Christ did not establish the Church precisely to be that through which we come to Him and receive grace from Him in the sacraments. The other error is the rationalistic or ritualistic error of disregarding who it is that is the Head of the Church, and whose Life is given to us through the sacraments, and whose fellowship and comfort we enjoy in prayerful communion with Him. In both errors, the eyes of faith are lost, but in a different way: one by losing sight of the matter through which we receive the Life of Christ, and the other by losing sight of the Life of Christ offered to us in this matter.

Indefectibility of the Mystical Body

What is the alternative to ecclesial deism? How would the integrity of the Gospel be preserved while it was taken to all the world over hundreds and now thousands of years? God graciously arranged that the things He had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.33 He did this by entrusting them to the Church, and providing the Church with a gift or charism by which she would be protected from losing or corrupting any part of the deposit of faith. St. Irenaeus speaks of this charism when he writes:

They [the bishops] have received the certain charism of the truth [i.e., gift of truth] according to the pleasure of the Father, with the succession in the office of bishop.34

The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church,35 that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,36 and that He will be with her to the end of the age,37. It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.38

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.”39 The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err. But it does entail that the Magisterium of the Church can never lose or corrupt any part of the revelation of Christ, which includes both matters theological and moral. This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.”40

The commission Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 did not end with the death of the last Apostle, because this commission was given not only to the Apostles, but to their successors and the whole Church. The task of taking the Gospel to all nations and the ends of the earth goes beyond what the Apostles could accomplish in their own lifetime. In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them.

Notes:

Luke 10:16. [↩] John 20:29. [↩] John 17:20. [↩] “That They May Be One,” Touchstone (July/Aug. 2003), available here. [↩] Dei Verbum 7. [↩] Adv. haer. IV 26.2. [↩] Matthew 16:18 [↩] John 16:13 [↩] Matthew 28:20 [↩] 1 Tim 3:15 [↩] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 296 (TAN, 1955) [↩] Satis cognitum 4. [↩]

Please find the original article here.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Miracles in the Catholic Church

One more of the proofs that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ is the presence of miracles in the Catholic Church. One website is dedicated to this: http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com/ The table of contents contain this: The Miracles of the Church -Three extraordinary miracles of the Eucharist -Santarem, Amsterdam & Offida The Mystic Voice from the next world -The amazing conversion of Adam Livingston -The Miraculous Medal & the apparitions of the Virgin Mary to St. Catherine Laboure -Incorrupt bodies of the Saints -Saints who raised the dead -Jesus comes alive -The miraculous crucifix of Limpias -Miraculous blood of St Januarius Listverse also has a list of astonish miracles within the Catholic Church, entitled: Top 10 Astonishing Miracles http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10-astonishing-miracles/ A youtube video on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcQ5SBdFKJs

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Theo 101 Part 3 Powerpoints

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%2010%20ELEV%20FALL.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%2011%20JESUS%20CHRIST%201.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%2012%20JESUS%20CHRIST%202.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%2013%20HS%20CHURCH.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%2014%20MARY.ppt







Thursday, February 7, 2013

Theo101 Part 2 Powerpoints

Test covers only the slides that we actually took up in class.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%201%20RELIGION.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%202%20REVELATION%20God%20Comes%20to%20Meet%20Man.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%203%204%20%20TRAD%20SS.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%205%20FAITH.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%206%20ONE%20GOD.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%207%20TRINITY.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%208%20CREATION%201.ppt






Friday, January 4, 2013

Theo 101 Part I Powerpoints

Introduction:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%200%20INTRO2%20ESSENTIALS.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%200%20INTRO.ppt


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%201%20BASICS.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/RED%20USB/theo101/Theo101%200%205%20LOVE%20OF%20GOD%20SIN%20CONFESSION.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/RED%20USB/theo101/Theo101%200%206%20LAST%20THINGS%20FOR%20EACH.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%202%20REPORT%201%20GOD%20EXISTS2.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%202%20REPORT%201%20GOD%20EXISTS.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%202%20REPORT%202%20CHURCH.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%203%20WHO%20IS%20JESUS.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%204%20WHAT%20IS%20THE%20ONE%20TRUE%20CHURCH.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%206a%20SACRAMENTS.ppt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64318356/red%20usb/theo101/Theo101%200%207%20MORALITY%20PRAYER.ppt














Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

By C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity

The Law of Human Nature

EVERY ONE HAS HEARD people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that some thing has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced! If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It’s not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

===============

There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?

Beauty and the UAP Chapel

I brought my students to the UAP Chapel for many reasons. One reason is found here in the text of Pope Benedict XVI:

I would like to consider briefly one of these channels that can lead us to God and also be helpful in our encounter with him.

It is the way of artistic expression, part of that via pulchritudinis — "way of beauty" ... which modern man should recover in its most profound meaning.

Perhaps it has happened to you at one time or another — before a sculpture, a painting, a few verses of poetry or a piece of music — to have experienced deep emotion, a sense of joy, to have perceived clearly, that is, that before you there stood not only matter a piece of marble or bronze, a painted canvas, an ensemble of letters or a combination of sounds — but something far greater, something that "speaks," something capable of touching the heart, of communicating a message, of elevating the soul.

Art is capable of expressing, and of making visible, man's need to go beyond what he sees; it reveals his thirst and his search for the infinite. Indeed, it is like a door opened to the infinite, opened to a beauty and a truth beyond the everyday. And a work of art can open the eyes of the mind and heart, urging us upward.

But there are artistic expressions that are true roads to God, the supreme Beauty— indeed, they are a help [to us] in growing in our relationship with him in prayer.

We are referring to works of art that are born of faith, and that express the faith. We see an example of this whenever we visit a Gothic cathedral: We are ravished by the vertical lines that reach heavenward and draw our gaze and our spirit upward, while at the same time, we feel small and yet yearn to be filled...

But how many times, paintings or frescos also, which are the fruit of the artist's faith — in their forms, in their colors, and in their light — move us to turn our thoughts to God, and increase our desire to draw from the Fount of all beauty. ================= I have often affirmed my conviction that the true apology of Christian faith, the most convincing demonstration of its truth against every denial, are the saints, and the beauty that the faith has generated. Today, for faith to grow, we must lead ourselves and the persons we meet to encounter the saints and to enter into contact with the Beautiful." - Pope Benedict XVI