Monthly Archives: October 2010

A Note On Apologetics

There are two basic ways to do apologetics.  One is positive, and one is negative.  It is the positive that I strive for, but often fall short.  It is the positive that is truer to the root of the word.  The root of “apologetics” comes from the Greek “apologia” which means “to make a defense.” So to my way of thinking, the best way to do apologetics is not to demonstrate how your wrong, but rather to show how your own position is right.  Sometimes, “proving the other guy wrong” is unavoidable, particularly if the two positions are diametrically opposed.  BUT THIS SHOULD NEVER BE YOUR PRIMARY TACTIC.  Many years ago, when I was a young Christian, and fully convinced that the Catholic Church was the Whore of  Babylon, I attacked a priest in this very fashion, buy going on the attack, and my only goal was to prove them wrong.  In fact, I had the two primary ingredients for foolish arrogance: I was a Fundamentalist and I was 21.  This priest (to this day I don’t know what his name was, but I think I could find out easily enough, as it is my own parish, and I know the year).  He told me “How strong is your faith when the only way you have to defend it is to attack the faith of others.”  This is true.  Lets say that the issue is the Primacy of Peter.  This is easily defended by giving positive evidence from the Bible and from the Early Church.  The same holds true with Transubstantiation.  It is my goal in my attempts to share my faith not to reduce myself to simply saying “Protestants are wrong because…” but rather, “the Church is right because…”  Now it may very well be the case that there is no middle ground, but that does not mean we must use attack as our polemic.  I don’t recall that tactic being used by the Apostles, or the Fathers, or any of the great Saints.  It is much better to draw people in with defense, than to risk offending them with attack.

Why Sola Scriptura doesn’t work

I am going to be providing a short list of reasons why I reject the doctrine commonly called Sola Scriptura. However, before I continue, I need to clarify which version of the doctrine I am addressing.  Since there is no unified belief system to which all Protestants adhere, definitions become important.  I am drawing the definition of Sola Scriptura from my own Fundamental Baptist background.  That is, that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith for doctrine and practice.  So, without further ado:

  • The Bible dies not define which books are to be included. Try as I might, I can’t seem to find a divinely inspired table of contents.  Truthfully, the contents of the Scriptures was discussed in four local synods in the 4th century, reiterated at the Council of Florence in the 15th century, then officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
  • The Bible never defines the Scriptures as the final authority in matters of discipline. For settling disputes between the brethren, Jesus instructs the Apostles to take the offending brother to the Church, and does not instruct them to search the Scriptures.
  • The Bible is at times unclear. There are stories in the Bible that are difficult to understand at any level.  There are others that on the surface seem easy to understand, but they contain much deeper typology that cannot be readily seen without instruction.
  • There are doctrines held by virtually all Christians that cannot be found explicitly in the Scriptures.  The Trinity, prohibition against abortion, Sunday worship, and other things are not found explicitly in the Scriptures.  These doctrines and practices developed over time.
  • The Bible is never given exclusive authority. Yes, the Scriptures are held in high regard, but there is nothing in the Bible that indicates it is to be held as an exclusive authority.  Yes, it is useful, but it is never given sole authority.
  • When an authority is named, it isn’t the Bible. There is a verse that gives ultimate authority as the “pillar and bulwark of truth,” and this authority is the Church, and not the Bible.

So there you have it.  The basic reasons why I do not adhere to Sola Scriptura.  There are others as well, but I think that this is sufficient to refute this particular error.

Halloween

It is upon us again, that day where children (and adults) dress up in costumes and have a grand time not acting their age.  Some would argue that no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) should partake in the bizarre rituals associated with the holiday.  Make no mistake, the rituals are truly bizarre.  For 364 days out of the year, we tell our children not to take candy from strangers, yet on Halloween, or some evening thereabouts, we dress up our little ones and escort them door to door to collect candy form folks we do not know.  The more enterprising parents, engaging in a practice I abhor, coordinate trick-or-treating in such a way as to take up the collection of confections on multiple nights, visiting other other areas of town, or even other towns altogether, but I digress.  As a distributor of sweets on the night of the collection, I would simply like to say that this practice is in and of itself harmless, though I gather dietitians and dentists may disagree. However there are good and bad ways to celebrate this strangeness.  First, I would suggest dressing up as ghouls, ghosts, devils, witches, etc is not the best way to instill a reverence for the dead in your little ones.  Focus on the cute over the macabre. I have seen miniature pirates, super-heroes, royalty, and various critters that made me overdose on cute.  I will take a ladybug or princess over a blood-splattered costume any time.  Of course, Halloween is the vigil of All Saints Day. Halloween is actually derived from “All Hallows Eve.”  It then would be fitting to dress a child up as a saint.  (I promise a double portion of candy to any child who shows up dressed like the Blessed Mother or my patron saint!)  That is it. I have said my piece.  This is my futile attempt to change how Halloween is viewed, from a celebration of death to just good clean fun.

Unanswered questions

I was posting on an internet forum, and the question of Catholic Tradition came up, as it is wont to do from time to time. A Mormon posted this statement:

i think you are comparing apples and oranges

protestants agree with alot of catholic tradition, like the naming of the Gospels, let’s call these ‘apples’

protestants don’t agree with all catholic tradition, like the Marian doctrines or maybe infant baptism, let’s call these ‘oranges’

I couldn’t let this rest.  I then quite directly asked how it is determined which Catholic Traditions are dependable, and which are not.  This was a couple of days ago, and still no response, either from athis poster, or any of the other Protestants participating in the discussion.  I know open the same question to my readers. IF not all Catholic Traditon is dependable, how can you tell which is, and which is not.  This is vitally important since the very Scriptures we depend upon are a product of Tradition.

Salvation Outside the Church

It is a historical teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside of the Church.  For this reason, there are some who mistakenly believe that this means that salvation can only be granted to those in the institutional Catholic Church.  The core of this problem is that the doctrine is approached soteriologically rather than ecclesiologically.  This doctrine is not addressing how people achieve salvation.  This doctrine is ultimately about the nature of the Church.  In other words, this doctrine is not making the claim that we are saved by the Church, but rather that those that are saved are in the Church by default.  Thus, it becomes imperative that we a full understanding on what and who the Church is.
The Second Vatican Council developed the understanding on this very thing..  Does the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, include more than practicing Catholics?  According to the Second Vatican Council, to which assent of the will must be given, the answer is “yes.”  According to Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, the Church is necessary for salvation.  Bur we also know form Unitatis Redintegratio that all those validly baptized, that is according to the Trinitarian Formula, and with the intention of bringing someone into the Church of Jesus Christ, is truly in the Mystical Body of Christ, though if not Catholic, this union with Christ is lacking in some way.  Of course one could take this to an extreme, and claim indifferentism, the idea that all churches are the same, and the means of salvation are to be found equally in all.  This is also not true.  The Council clearly teaches that the “fullness of faith subsists in th Catholic Church alone,” which seems to indicate that the Catholic Church holds primacy.  It is of my own personal opinion, that if one knows that the Catholic Church is the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, and still rejects the Church, then their soul is in peril.  If one is seeking the truth, and has not yet come to that knowledge, then we must trust on the mercy of God.  I realize that this post is fairly inadequate in treating this complex subject, but I would implore you to carefully read the Church’s documents, and you will see that the normative path to salvation is through the Catholic Church, but that does not mean that one must be a registered Catholic to attain salvation.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

The Sermon on the Mount is at such variance with all that our world hold dear that the world will crucify anyone who tries to live up to its values.  Because Christ preached them, He had to die.  Calvary was the price He paid for the Sermon on the Mount.  Only mediocrity survives. Those who call black black, and white white, are sentenced for intolerance. Only the grays live.

Seminary visit

After my class on Friday, I took a 4 1/2 hour road trip to Cincinnati, Ohio to visit the Athenium/Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.  It is the first of several seminary visits I will be making as I discern my call to the ministerial priesthood.  Architecturally, the building reminded me of the school in The Dead Poet’s Society.  I wan’t there long, as I arrived Friday afternoon and departed Saturday morning, but I felt a real camaraderie with the students there, and the priests on the faculty and administration I met were very friendly.  I learned more about the discernment process, And I look forward to continuing on my journey to discover I am truly called to be a priest.