Infallibility - what it is and what it isn't

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An old school friend, who still attends the Baptist church that we attended as teenagers, recently asked me, as a Catholic, to explain Papal Infallibility. As part of his question, he linked the following article providing a not unusual apologetic against the Catholic Church’s teaching on this topic:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2594

I responded in two parts to my friend – the first part explaining what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Papal Infallibility (which follows below); and the second part was my response to Moises Pinedo’s article, which you can view by clicking here.

Papal Infallibility is often misunderstood by Protestants. Many Protestants think that Papal Infallibility means that the Pope can’t sin (that’s not infallibility; that’s impeccability); others think that it means that the Pope cannot believe or teach heresy in any way, shape, or form. Both of these notions are incorrect.

To start with, it’s important to understand that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Rather, it exists within the context of a broader understanding of the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Christ entrusted His Church with the threefold office of teaching, governing, and sanctifying. In respect of the teaching office (or Magisterium), Christ who is the Truth, in His grace blessed the Church with a share in His infallibility. He did this to fulfil His promise that He would remain with and preserve His Church with the purity of faith handed down from by the Apostles. In this gift, we also see the goodness of God who gives us as Christians an objective guarantee of being able to profess the true faith without error.

So that this role of the Magisterium could be fulfilled, Christ has blessed the Church with the gift of infallibility when it definitively makes declarations regarding matters of faith and morals.

The key thing to understand here is that the Church’s infallibility is completely and utterly a gift of God’s grace.

There are a few ways in which this infallible teaching office, or Magisterium, can be exercised. One of them is when the Church gathers in an Ecumenical Council. The other is in reference to the Bishop of Rome, as the Successor of St. Peter (the Rock upon whom Christ built His Church and gave the keys of the kingdom) and the visible head (or representative) of Christ (who is the true Head of the Holy Catholic Church). The infallibility “enjoyed” by the Bishop of Rome (or the Pope) is limited only to statements that he makes “Ex Cathedra” or “from the Chair” (of St. Peter to be precise). In these statements, and these statements alone, is he guaranteed to be preserved by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

There are certain conditions required for a Papal statement to be considered as “Ex Cathedra”, but without going into depth regarding these, suffice it to say that it MUST be clear to everybody that it is the intention of the Pope that he is making a definitive “Ex Cathedra” statement.

With this in mind, it is clear that the personal writings or opinions of any given Pope are not infallible. Pope Benedict XVI, in his first book on “Jesus of Nazareth”, admitted as much when he said that his book was “in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my [i.e. Josef Ratzinger’s] personal search for the face of the Lord”.

In this way, when Popes express their personal views on anything they are just as infallible as the next person. That’s not to say that he won’t get it right...but, it’s also not to say that he won’t get it wrong.

Whilst the Church doesn’t adhere to a doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), it does adhere to the doctrine of Sola Verbum Dei (the Word of God alone). Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that the Word of God is not limited to Scripture, but Scripture certainly plays an extremely important role in the life of the Church. And since God is One, and there is only One Truth, it is impossible for any teaching of the Catholic Church to be contrary to Sacred Scripture. The reason Protestants don’t see this is because they interpret the Bible differently to Catholics. In addition, not only does Catholic doctrine not contradict Scripture, but based on the correct interpretation of Scripture (the same interpretation used by the Church since the time of the Apostles, through the Early Church Fathers, up until today) it can be shown that all Catholic doctrine has a basis in Scripture. In respect of the infallibility of the Church, consider the following texts:

• Matt 16:17 – St. Peter’s profession of faith; which was revealed to Him by the Father – this is not unlike what the Catholic Church continues to teach regarding the Successor of Peter – that when he makes a definitive statement regarding faith, he is enlightened by God to do so.
• Matt 28:18-20 – Jesus promised that He would remain with the Church until the end of the ages. And we would both agree that the Lord Jesus would have no union with heretics (e.g. Rev 2 & 3). If this is true, and Jesus Christ never left His Church, then the Church never fell into heresy (despite what the Protestant Reformers thought).
• John 14:16, 25; 16:13 – Jesus told His disciples that He would send the Holy Spirit to be with the Church FOREVER and guide the Church into ALL truth...the Protestant view which says the Catholic Church fell into heresy basically implies (whether it wants to or not) that Jesus lied on both these points.
• Jn 11:49-51 – Ananias is granted the gift of true prophecy even though his intentions were not good. Interestingly, St. John ties this gift to his office as high priest.

Now, I suppose the claim can be made that Catholics are misinterpreting these (and other) passages of Scripture. So, how do we know what the Apostles meant when they penned the New Testament? Well, we go the witness of their disciples, the Church Fathers...and what do we see? The same thing i.e. that the interpretation followed by the Catholic Church today remains faithful to the tradition and interpretation handed down to the Fathers by the Apostles:

“For the Lord received anointing on His head in order that He might breathe incorruptibility on the Church. Do not be anointed with the evil odour of the teachings of the prince of this world...” – St. Ignatius, AD110

[Notice that the incorruptibility Christ breathed on His Church is in the context of, and in contrast to, the false teachings of the prince of this world.]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate the succession [from the Apostles] of all churches, we shall here point out the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul....For with this Church [i.e. with the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her [i.e. the Church of Rome] that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” – St. Irenaeus, AD180

“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the Apostle was mistaken in bearing witness; that the Holy Spirit had no such consideration for any one Church as to lead it into truth, although He was sent for that purpose by Christ, who had asked the Father to make Him the Teacher of truth; that the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ neglected his office, and permitted the Churches for a time to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself had preached through the Apostles: now, is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into a unity of faith?” – Tertullian, AD200

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [i.e. Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” – St. Cyprian, AD252

In the understanding of the Church Fathers, the Church of Jesus Christ which had descended from the Apostles, by way of Apostolic Succession, was (and is) not able to fall into heresy. Not because the Church is so wonderful; but rather because of her infallible Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, who promised that He would be with His Bride throughout all the ages, protecting her and nourishing her. To deny the doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church is nothing less than to deny the gracious gift that Jesus Christ has given His Most Holy Bride.

Is the Pope "Infallible"? - a response to Moises Pinedo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An old school friend, who still attends the Baptist church that we attended as teenagers, recently asked me, as a Catholic, to explain Papal Infallibility. As part of his question, he linked the following article providing a not unusual apologetic against the Catholic Church’s teaching on this topic:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2594

I responded in two parts to my friend – the first part explaining what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Papal Infallibility (see here); and the second part was my response to Moises Pinedo’s article, which I have included below.

Pinedo’s article is basically a misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church truly teaches. Sadly, this is a common flaw in anti-Catholic apologetics. I have nothing against people who make solid arguments against the Catholic faith; but more often than not the Church’s teachings are taken out of context and/or misrepresented…and the large majority of anti-Catholic Protestants unquestioningly and unwaveringly adopt these weak arguments against the Catholic Church and because of them will refuse to hear anything that tries to correct them.

Pinedo starts by given a statement from the First Dogmatic Constitution (Vatican I) stating that when the Pope speaks “Ex Cathedra” he possesses infallibility. That’s a great start…but that’s unfortunately where it ends for Pinedo. His whole article basically falls flat because he misunderstands and misrepresents what it means for the Pope to speak “Ex Cathedra”.

Pinedo says that “papal infallibility means that the pope makes, or should make, no mistakes in matters concerning the doctrine of the Catholic Church”. This is not what the First Dogmatic Constitution was saying. What it DID say was WHEN the Pope speaks “Ex Cathedra”...

In other words, Pinedo incorrectly equates EVERYTHING the Pope says with “Ex Cathedra” – but as I pointed out in the first part of my response to you, what Pinedo equates with “Ex Cathedra” is NOT what the Catholic Church understands as “Ex Cathedra”. 

Thus, the Pope’s own private opinions are NOT “Ex Cathedra” statements; and even if he puts pen to paper (e.g. in a book) this is still not “Ex Cathedra”. So, a Pope can make mistakes regarding doctrine. But what he cannot do…rather, what the Holy Spirit will preserve him from doing (“sola gratia”), is make a definitive declaration on faith or morals which is heretical. Like Cardinal Cajetan correctly said (as quoted by Pinedo), the Pope, as a private individual, is as fallible as any other person.

When Pinedo makes the accusation that this is all “very convenient, since Catholicism itself defines what is ‘official’”, he really isn’t being fair. The Church has already defined what is necessary for a statement to be “Ex Cathedra” – it’s not like the Church is retrospectively amending this definition to make it fit the mould depending on what definitive statements Pope’s might make. 

Pinedo says that “Innumerable ‘clarifications’ have been offered to calm Catholics” and to “satisfy the demands of infallibility”. This is far from true. Pinedo seems to think that because he is unnerved by Papal Infallibility (in his own misunderstanding of what it really is) Catholics, who actually understand what it REALLY is, must also be just as unnerved. On the contrary, Catholics are quite comfortable with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and do not require to “be calmed” due to something any particular Pope may have said outside of the realms of “Ex Cathedra”. In fact, it should be remembered that instances of these infallible declarations by Popes are extremely rare; and there have been only TWO such declarations in the last 150 years i.e.:

1)      The Immaculate Conception (1854); and
2)      The Assumption of Mary (1950).

Be that as it may, Pinedo gives a few examples of what he deems to be contradictions in “infallible” statements made by various Popes and Councils of the Church. Even if we granted that the Papal statements were doctrinally incorrect, this wouldn’t necessarily pose a problem, given that they were not made “Ex Cathedra”. But this is irrelevant, because I think that when the statements are understood in context, the apparent contradictions disappear.

I will deal with these briefly and hopefully show that these are not actually contradictions, as Pinedo presumes.

1)      Pinedo says that the “recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” destroys the reality of Adam and that “humanity carries the sin of the first man”. But this is a straw-man argument. The theory of evolution can be reconciled with the historicity of Adam and Eve as our first parents. For example, God could have used the process of evolution to create Adam and Eve as the first human beings. The Bible doesn’t provide a scientific description of HOW God created Adam and Eve. So to acknowledge evolution, doesn’t necessarily mean a denial of Adam and Eve as the first parents of the entire human race.

 

2)      Pinedo sees Vatican II’s high esteem of Muslims as contradictory to what Vatican I had to say about “the abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion”.

In a similar vein, he regards that when Vatican II said that it rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) this was a contradiction of Vatican I which said that anyone who didn’t receive the Canonical Scriptures as declared by Trent was anathema.

What Pinedo is doing here is making an issue appear bigger than it is. Just because a certain religion doesn’t accept Christ, does not mean that there isn’t some good in that religion. For example, Buddhists seek harmony and peace with everyone and everything. That is an attribute to be commended. Muslims worship one God and seek to live lives of high morals. Another attribute to be commended. So, these things that are good in other religions should be acknowledged as good, and often we can learn from others in this way too.

The other thing to bear in mind here is context. When Vatican I speaks about the “abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion”, it needs to be remembered that these other faiths never accepted Christianity in the first place – so they can’t be said to have “abandoned” it.

And when Vatican I speaks about receiving as “sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture will all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them”, the context is more specifically addressed towards the Protestant Reformation where certain books, which have always been received as Sacred Scripture, were rejected. Which brings me to the next point…

3)      Pinedo thinks that Vatican II’s acceptance of Christians who do not adhere to Catholic doctrine is contradictory to Vatican I. But again, the statements provided from Vatican I (i.e. those regarding the Canon of Scripture and Petrine primacy) were made in the context of the Protestant Reformation. And in this regard, the Church recognises the principles of ignorance and culpability. In other words, Protestants today cannot be held responsible for what happened in the revolt which brought schism and division to the Body of Christ in the Protestant Reformation. In fact, many Protestants are so badly misinformed about what the Catholic Church really teaches, that if they knew the truth of it, many of them would return to the fold. But the same cannot be said for the Protestants who were responsible for the Reformation – they knew better what they were rejecting, and for the Church rightly condemns them for the division that they have caused.

Pinedo concludes his article by claim that “the doctrine of papal infallibility has caused, and continues to cause, many people to accept false doctrines”, a few examples which he goes on to list.

His claim is that these “false doctrines” are unbiblical. But this isn’t true because a biblical basis can be made for each of those listed:

a)      Assumption of Mary (e.g. Rev 12:1ff)

b)      Canonisation of Saints (e.g. Heb 11 & Heb 12:1ff)

c)      Evolution – Gen 1 and Gen 2 contain certain discrepancies which can lean towards showing that Gen 1 is not necessarily an actual “blow-by-blow” literal and scientific account of the Creation. Interestingly, on this point, he exaggerates what Pope John Paul II said about evolution, and now claims that the Church teaches the “factuality” of evolution. Actually, the Church doesn’t have an official stance on evolution. Catholics are free to agree or disagree with the theory of evolution. The thing that we are required to believe is that God created all things from nothing. It is not the HOW that matters; it is the fact that He is the Author of Creation.

If you have read Pinedo's article, you may notice that there was one supposed “false doctrine” listed by Pinedo that I haven’t listed above, and for a good reason. He claims that people who follow the Bible alone will reject the false doctrine of original sin. Now, if Pinedo is correct, this immediately poses a problem for many Protestants who adhere to Sola Scriptura as well as the doctrine of original sin.

What this highlights is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is far more susceptible to giving rise to heresies than the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. This is because Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating principle which leaves the interpretation of Scripture open to the private individual. All of the Ancient heresies that the Church has condemned throughout the ages (and which many Protestants continue to condemn themselves) sprung up because someone decided to interpret the Bible in a way that runs contradictory to the way it had been received, and every single one of those heretics  used Scripture to back up their claims. Even in situations which don’t end up in full-blown heresy, the history of Protestant denominationalism is proof of what happens when the Reformers’ principle of “private interpretation” meets “Sola Scriptura”.

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that principle of Sola Scriptura is actually never taught in the Bible itself. And even if it was, it would be nothing more than a circular argument i.e.

I only believe what the Bible says because the Bible is true. How do I know the Bible is true? Because it says it is.

Beyond this circular argument is also the fact that the Bible never stands alone…it always stands upon someone’s interpretation of it. So, Sola Scriptura really is the wrong “catch-phrase”. It would be more correct to claim “Sola Mea” or “The Bible alone as I interpret it”.

As a far more reasonable alternative to Sola Scriptura is what St. Paul taught when he reminded St. Timothy that it is the Church (not the Bible) which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Not only does this make logical sense, but it also makes sense of the historical fact that the Church preceded the Bible i.e. the Church was preaching the Gospel and teaching doctrine long before the New Testament was even written. The Church gave us the Bible, and not vice versa. If the Bible is the Church’s book, then it is the Church’s privilege and responsibility to teach us how best to interpret it. And thanks be to God, when the Church does so in exercising her teaching office (Magisterium), the Holy Spirit guides her so that Christians can be assured that what the Church teaches is true.

Mary - the Ark of the Covenant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the earliest times, the Church has believed and taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the fulfilment of the Ark of the Covenant. For example:

“...the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the Ark overlaid with pure gold, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the Ark made manifest.” – St. Hippolytus (d. 236AD), Second Fragment on Daniel, Chapter 6

“Arise, O Lord, into Your rest; You, and the Ark of Your Sanctuary. For the Holy Virgin is in truth the Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the Sanctuary.” – St Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 275AD), Homily On the Annunciation

There are many more quotes available here, for any who are interested in digging deeper.

Well, as Catholics, it seems pretty obvious to us that Mary is the New Ark. The Ark was made of the purest gold – fulfilled in Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Mary bore within her womb the Lord Jesus Christ; and the Ark of the Covenant bore within it three things, which are fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ:

1)    The Rod of Aaron – Jesus the Eternal High Priest

2)    The Ten Commandments – Jesus the Great Prophet and Giver of the Law

3)    The Manna – Jesus the Bread of Life which comes from heaven

For Catholics, the idea that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant is simply a logical conclusion. But is there more to it? What about Sacred Scripture – does the Bible back up what we claim? After all, whilst we don’t hold to the notion of Sola Scriptura, we do believe that what the Holy Catholic Church teaches will never contradict Sacred Scripture.

So what does Scripture have to say on this subject then? We know that the New Testament clearly points to the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of many Old Testament types e.g. the New Adam (1 Cor 15:45), the Eternal High Priest (Heb 6:20), the New Temple (Jn 2:19-21), the New Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7), etc. But Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant? Did the Church Fathers simply dream this up? Where did they get such an idea? The New Testament never specifically says that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant…or does it?
 
In his Apocalypse, St. John tells us that he saw the Temple of God open up in heaven, and he beheld the Ark of the Covenant (Rev 11:19). Then he goes on to elaborate on what he saw…he saw a great sign in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head (Rev 12:1). Because of the chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bibles, we often miss the connection that St. John is making here. But, St. John didn’t write the Book of Revelation with chapter and verse divisions in mind. So, when he tells us about the Woman, he is developing what he saw in respect of the Ark of the Covenant.
 
So who is this Woman? Well, the Book of Revelation is a multi-layered prophecy with the images portrayed by St. John as being able to refer to various things all at the same time (e.g. the seven-headed dragon refers to seven mountains as well as seven kings, according to Rev 17:9). In a similar way, the image of the Woman is able to refer to multiple things (including Israel and the Church). But one thing that the image of the Woman undoubtedly refers to is the Blessed Virgin Mary. After all, if child referred to in Rev 12:4-5 is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that the Woman who gives birth to Him is none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, St. John was telling us that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

But that’s not the only reference we have. In St. Luke’s Gospel, when speaking about the visitation of the Blessed Virgin to St. Elisabeth (Lk 1:39-45), he subtly makes use an episode in Israel’s history for his backdrop. The parallel event that St. Luke draws upon is the relocating of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (see 2 Sam 6:1-16). There is so much overlap between these two passages that it is impossible to deny that St. Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wanted us to see Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. For example, here are just a few brief parallels to consider:

• Mary arose and went into the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39); David and his men go up into the same region (2 Sam 6:2)
• The baby leaped in Elisabeth’s womb (Lk 1:41); David leaped with dancing (2 Sam 6:16)
• Elisabeth’s exultation at Mary’s arrival (Lk 1:42); the people’s exultation at the Ark’s arrival (1 Chron 15:28)
• Elisabeth asks: “How could it be that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” (Lk 1:43); David asks: “How could the Ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
• Mary remains in the house of Elisabeth for three months (Lk 1:56); The Ark remained in the house of Obededom for three months (2 Sam 6:11)

[I should add that 1 Sam 6:6-8 mentions Uzzah putting forth his hand to touch the Ark, which was forbidden. In like manner, the Blessed Virgin was “untouched” by any man.]

These passages from St. John’s Apocalypse and St. Lukes Gospel show clearly that the early Church’s belief that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant has a solid Scriptural foundation; and these passages often form the basic Catholic apologetic to Protestants who think otherwise.

But earlier this week, as I started reading Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth - the Infancy Narratives”, I learned that there is even more in St. Luke’s account that points to Our Lady as the New Testament fulfilment of the Ark of the Covenant.  In fact, it is the first thing that St. Luke does to introduce us to the Blessed Virgin Mary – almost as if that was a fundamental point that he was trying to get across.

St. Luke introduces Mary to us in the words of Gabriel: “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee!” (Lk 1:28). These words are uttered by the Lord God, through the words of His messenger Gabriel, in fulfilment of the prophecy in Zeph 3:14-17:

Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion;
shout, O Israel!
Rejoice and exult with all your heart,
O daughter of Jerusalem!
The Lord has taken away the judgments against you,
he has cast out your enemies.
The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst;
you shall fear evil no more.
On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem:
“Do not fear, O Zion;
let not your hands grow weak.
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a warrior who gives victory;
he will rejoice over you with gladness,
he will renew you in his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.

The Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that St. Luke would have been familiar with) for “Sing aloud!” in Zeph 3:14 is the word “chairo!”. It means to “be full of cheer” or to “rejoice”. Why must the daughter of Zion rejoice? Zeph 3:17 tells us – because the Lord is in her midst. The Hebrew word for “in the midst of” is “qereb” and literally translated, it means “in the womb”. And it is the same word (“qereb”) that is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to describe how God dwells with His people in....(guess what???)...the Ark of the Covenant! So, Zephaniah prophesies for the daughter of Zion to rejoice because God will dwell within her womb.

Now, you’ll never guess what word St. Luke uses for Gabriel’s “Hail!” in his greeting of the Blessed Virgin? You got it! It is “chairo!”.  And why must Mary rejoice? Because she – the handmaid of the Lord – has God with her, in her midst, in her womb.

[Noting this, we also see that the Blessed Virgin becomes the fulfilment of the “daughter of Zion” – which has implications that point us back to the Woman in Rev 12:1.]

Note also that in Zeph 3:16, the prophet says to the people: “Fear not” (Zeph 3:16); and so too does Gabriel to Mary (Lk 1:30).

I just need to raise one more point needs to be made that would no doubt have been at the forefront of St. Luke’s mind as he was penning this narrative...

St. Luke knew that the Presence of God came to dwell in the midst (or in the womb) of His people by the cloud covering (or overshadowing) the Tabernacle / Temple (e.g. Ex 40:34; 2 Chron 5:13). And that is exactly how God came to dwell in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary i.e. by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35).

Now, this is all just merely scratching the surface regarding the Scriptural basis for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. At the very least what it shows is that the Church Fathers, in teaching that Mary was the Ark of God, were simply being faithful in preserving and developing true Apostolic doctrine, handed down through the teaching of the Church. And this same doctrine has also been preserved for us within Sacred Scripture – if only we are prepared to go looking...

As the Ark of the Covenant brought peace to God’s people because it was the sign that God was in their midst; so too may the presence of Our Lady in your life bring peace to your soul...because she is always with the Lord, who is the Great Prince of Peace!

 

Present Your Bodies as a Living Sacrifice

In his exhortation “Verbum Domini”, the Holy Father reminds us that the “the liturgy is the privileged setting in which God speaks to us in the midst of our lives” (Verbum Domini, No. 52). He says this in the context of Sacred Scripture being most at home in the liturgy, because it is in the liturgy that we really encounter the Word of God.

This hit home for me in today’s Mass (22^nd Sunday of Ordinary Time) in the Second Reading (Rom 12:1-2) and the Gospel (Matt 16:21-27).

In Rom 12:1-2, St. Paul tells us to present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God; and to be transformed in doing so. 

In the Gospel reading, our Lord tells us that if we want to be His disciples we need to take up our cross and follow Him (Matt 16:24). As Christians, we are called to suffer for the sake of Christ. But for Christians, suffering is not a bad thing because it leads us to glory (Rom 8:17; see also Jn 12:23-26 where Jesus uses similar language to that of Matt 16:24-25). Also, because we are members of the Christ’s Body the Church, we are able to offer our sufferings up for the Church to complete what was lacking in Christ’s sufferings (Col 1:24).

We are no doubt familiar with the above passages of Sacred Scripture, but they really come alive for us when we relate them back to the liturgy.

In the liturgy of the Eucharist, we offer the gifts of bread and wine (the fruit of our hands) which are placed by the priest on the altar. We offer these gifts to God in thanksgiving (eucharistia) for all that He has done for us. But the fact that our gifts are placed on the altar signifies that what we are doing is far more than saying “thank-you”. An altar speaks of sacrifice. This means that when we offer our gifts, we are really declaring that we are offering ourselves, and all that has been given to us, as a sacrifice to God.

At the words of institution, the bread and wine are transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as the re-presentation (i.e. the presenting again) of the once-for-all Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary. In this action, the sacrifice of ourselves is united with the Sacrifice of Christ, and thus becomes a sweet-smelling offering which is acceptable to God (Phil 4:18). [After all, nothing we offer to God has any value apart from it being united to Christ]. Then, as we receive our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion, He slowly but surely transforms us into His own image (see here and here).

Perhaps one way of being reminded of this is to develop the habit of consciously offering our whole life – our prayers, works, joys, and sufferings – to God during the Presentation of the Gifts and the Offertory Prayer, remembering that as we do so we are offering ourselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God; which is our spiritual worship.  

His blood be on us and our children

I am busy reading the Part Two of Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth. As usual, his theological insights are invaluable; and as usual, there are a few things that really stand out more than others.

One of the more significant things he has had to say in this book concerns the curse that the Jews called down upon themselves when they demanded to have our Lord Jesus crucified. You may recall that Pontius Pilate was looking for an opportunity to deliver Jesus because he found no fault in Him; however, when he saw that he would not be able to have Jesus released without causing a riot, he resorted to washing his hands saying that he wanted no part of this execution. The Jews responded by saying “His blood be on us and our children”. In their ignorance, they were willing for God to curse them for shedding the blood of an innocent man, and even more than an innocent man – the Son of God Incarnate.

Now, that’s the way that I have always understood this passage, which is OK insofar as it goes. However, our Holy Father in his usual perceptive way has suggested that we look at this passage from a slightly different perspective – indeed he is suggesting that we look at it from the perspective of our Merciful God who does not delight in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11).

Here is what our Holy Father has to say: 

When in Matthew’s account the “whole people” say: “His blood be on us and on our children” (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus’blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...God put [Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood” (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas’ words about the need for Jesus’ death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew’s reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew’s Gospel take on its correct meaning.

The Gospel truth is that if anyone is covered by the blood of Christ, He is blessed and not cursed. So, not unlike Joseph being sold into Egyptian slavery (Gen 50:20); whilst the crowd was willing to call down God’s curse, God meant it as a blessing for them. By going to the Cross, our Lord Jesus gave His life for the sins of the whole world, including those who cried out for His crucifixion...and thanks be to God, for me too because I am just as guilty for His crucifixion because of my own sins.  

P.S. As a side note, I think that it is important to clarify that by saying the Jews called out for the crucifixion of our Lord, we do not attribute guilt to all Jews of all ages; nor even to all Jews who were living at the time of our Lord e.g. the people who demanded His crucifixion were not the same people who sang His praises on Palm Sunday. Unfortunately, a wrong interpretation on this point has been the cause for much anti-Semitic behaviour; behaviour which should be deplored as un-Christian because all men are created in the image of God. 

The Pope's 3 Simple Rules for Holiness

Have a read of this...it is so simple yet so profound...

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-popes-3-simple-rules-for-holiness?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540National+Catholic+Register%2541#When:14:46:21Z

Covenant and Communion – The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI

I have just finished reading Scott Hahn’s book “Covenant and Communion – The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI”.

I really appreciated how he brought to light the Pope’s teaching that the Scriptures are to be read and interpreted both scientifically and through the eyes of a historical faith.

But for me one of the more significant teachings of the Pope that Scott Hahn highlighted was that the Word of God is not only informative, but it is also performative and transformative. That is, it is not only a dead letter, but it really achieves what it sets out to achieve. For example, when God said “Let there be light”, He was not simply stating a fact, but His very words spoken transformed the formless void and the heavens and earth came into being. And just as Jesus, who is the True Word of God, transformed water into wine, so too by His words the bread and wine are transformed into His Body and Blood.

The summit of the Pope’s teaching then is that the goal of the Word of God is not only to inform us about where we came from and how we relate to God, but it’s goal is to transform all of creation. And this transformation begins with the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, in the Gospel. And truly the Gospel is not just a message about a Messiah that died for our sins and rose again for our justification. Certainly it is that, but it is also so much more. The Gospel is the Word that transforms those who hear it; and through this Word God conforms us more and more to our Lord Jesus Christ. So it is that by the Word of the Gospel, and the Gospel of the Word, that God completes the work that He began when He first spoke the universe into existence.

If you are interested, the book can be found at Amazon at the link below:

http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Communion-Biblical-Theology-Benedict/dp/1587432692/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302696317&sr=8-1

The orchestra and Church unity

Every now and then I enjoy listening to a beautifully composed piece of classical music. But nowadays, the “classics” I mostly get to listen to are Old MacDonald’s Farm, Twinkle Star, the ABC song, etc. courtesy of my two oldest daughters. Don’t get me wrong – I wouldn’t change it for the world. It is the cutest thing to see them learn new songs and sing along in the car to their own made up words.

But I digress...classical music...

This weekend, I was thinking about orchestral classical music (yes, I often have random thoughts that I just let run their course...and don’t judge me because I’m sure you do the same...). It got me to thinking about Church unity. Consider this...

Imagine an orchestra playing an extremely detailed piece of classical music. What does the orchestra need to make that music come alive in a beautiful way? Unity. And for that unity to exist, a few things are necessary. They need to be playing from the same sheet music; they all need to play in the same time; each person needs to know their place and their part and stick to it; etc. As I was pondering this, it actually struck me as to just how important the conductor actually is, and how each and every person in the orchestra needs to be able to see the conductor and follow his lead.

The Church of Jesus Christ is like an orchestra playing the glorious masterpiece of the Gospel. For this masterpiece to be fully appreciated, we must all be following the same doctrine (the sheet music). Unfortunately, in today’s world the Gospel is scandalised because there is so much division in Christianity. To start, there are the major rifts between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants. For the most part, Catholic and Orthodox theology agrees and it appears that a reunification is on the distant horizon. However, the rift with Protestantism is far greater...and this is compounded by the fact that within Protestantism itself there are such major divisions that reunification at times seems completely impossible. Christianity is far away from having “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5).

This is where we are able to see the wisdom of God in establishing His Church with a visible head on earth, akin to the conductor in an orchestra. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That means that he is Christ’s visible representative on earth, instituted by our Lord for the sake of the unity of the Church. Like the conductor, he is assigned with the task of leading God’s Church in unity so that we can know how we should play God’s Gospel masterpiece. As soon as we start ignoring our God-given conductor, we become responsible for the scandalous noise that is not the true Gospel.

So this morning, let us thank God for our Catholic Church – that He has preserved it through the centuries as He has promised. And let’s especially thank Him for the ministry of our Holy Father – and may we all find it in our hearts today to pray for him and for his intentions (which can be found here http://www.ewtn.com/faith/papalprayer.htm).

As an aside, I thought that I would also provide a brief comment on the Church being One and Catholic (or Universal). For Catholics, it means that the One Church of Jesus Christ covers the whole world i.e. it is One and it is Universal at the same time...and this unity an universality is something that can actually be seen.

But for many Protestants, it means something very different. Because the division within Protestantism is rife, many Protestants will try to spiritualise (away) what it means for the Church to be One and to be Catholic i.e. they argue that the Church is unified and it is universal, but only spiritually. This means that there is a unity and universalism that exists, despite the fact that we can’t see it outwardly.

There are a few problems with this Protestant invention – not least being that it can’t be backed up by their principle of Sola Scriptura; that is, this notion of the Church is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. It is a doctrine that has developed to overcome a difficulty produced by the fruits of a Protestant Reformation which has done more to tear the Church to pieces than it has to build it up in unity.

Another problem is that many denominational differences are irreconcilable. For example, whilst claiming to hold to “one baptism”, many Protestants (e.g. Baptists) do not accept other Protestants (e.g. Presbyterians) exercise valid baptisms. But they want to have their cake AND eat it because those same Baptists would never go so far as to say that those Presbyterians aren’t part of Christ’s one universal Church. It doesn’t take much to see how obviously inconsistent this position is.

The “unity” and “universalism” of Protestant doctrine is only imagined. But the unity and universalism of the Holy Catholic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ is real – and it is guarded by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And we would cause division to this unity at our own peril.

Called to Communion

For those who have never read anything by Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), I would really encourage you to do so. Apart from the fact that he is our Pope, he is also one of the most gifted theologians I have ever read...and that is only after reading two of his books.

The first book of his I read was “Jesus of Nazareth” which covers the life and ministry of our Lord from His baptism to the Transfiguration, and I am already chomping at the bit waiting for the second instalment.

Now I have just finished reading his “Called to Communion”, which he actually wrote before he ascended to the Papacy. For a book that is small and only 165 pages long, it certainly packs a heap of punch...like they say – dynamite comes in small packages. Cardinal Ratzinger speaks of the true nature of the Church of Jesus Christ as the One Body of Christ. He then goes on to speak of how that unity / communion flows from the one Eucharist / Holy Communion that we share as the One Church. He also elaborates on the connection with the Primacy of Peter (as the sacrament of unity) and how the particular (local) churches under their respective bishops all form part of this One Universal (i.e. Catholic) Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. From that flows the essence of the priesthood and how that it relates to the unity of Christ’s Body.

Reading this you might think that this sounds just too theological...but the beauty of how Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI writes is that he has a way of making even difficult theology acceptable to the simplest of us (which is probably why I am actually able to follow it). And I think that the reason his theology is so simple yet profound is because he always brings things back to the most basic foundation of our faith – the Lord Jesus Christ.

So again...if you have never read anything by our Holy Father, I would really encourage you to start. I guarantee that you will be blessed. It is really hard to read his works and not be prompted on to holiness.

Your love for the Church shows your love for Christ

Back in the days when I was still a Protestant, one of the most significant things that my Baptist pastor taught me was to love the Church – purely because it was the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ loved and died for (Eph 5:25). It was a lesson that has stuck with me ever since, and little did I know then that it would be one of the things that would lead me to the Catholic Church – which is the household of faith and the Body of Christ.

If we really love our Lord Jesus Christ, we will love His Body, the Church. I was reminded of this earlier this week while I was reading “Called to Communion” by Pope Benedict XVI (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), where our holy father had the following to say:

“...we do not seek a Christ whom we have invented, for only in real communion of the Church do we encounter the real Christ...[T]he depth and seriousness of one’s relation to the Lord himself is revealed in the ready willingness to love the Church, to live together with her and to serve Christ in her.”

So, the true test of our love for Christ is whether we love one another. May God grant that we would grow in our love for the Church as evidence of our love for our Lord Jesus Christ.

Knowledge of Christ is not only intellectual

In his papal address on 18 April 2007, Pope Benedict XVI made the following comment in the context of discussing St. Clement of Alexandria:

“Knowledge of Christ is not only thought, but is love which opens the eyes, transforms the person, and creates communion with the Logos, with the Divine Word who is truth and life.”

I love theology because it is the study of our great and merciful God. But sometimes we can become so focussed on our theology that it can tend to become dry, and we risk losing Christ because our theology becomes the end rather than the means to the end.

Theology is good because it helps us to know Christ better. However, as our Holy Father so wisely puts it “knowledge of Christ is not only thought”. We have to let our theology open our eyes so that we are transformed and drawn into closer communion with our Lord and Saviour.

In this way, the words of our Holy Father are simply an echo of those of our first Pope, when he said that avoiding false doctrine, we should “grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18).

As each one of us seeks to grow in our understanding of our Lord Jesus, may our prayer always be for His grace that we would be drawn into deeper communion with Him.  And where can we receive this grace most especially? The greatest grace is received through the same means as the end that we are hoping for, and that is Holy Communion. There is no greater gift of grace that our Lord can give us than Himself in the Blessed Sacrament. So, if we desire to know Jesus, and enter into deeper communion with Him, the best place to start is with the Holy Eucharist.

Our Holy Father has just recently issued a new post-synodal Apostolic exhortation entitled "Verbum Domini" (i.e. the Word of the Lord).

The document deals with various matters including Trinitarian revelation; the relationship between revelation and Eucharist (see my post yesterday); and the Church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures. I can't wait to read it...

If you would like to read it, or simply browse through it, click on the link below:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.pdf

True preaching leads to the Eucharist

"...the preaching of God's Kingdom is never just words, never just instruction. It is an event, just as Jesus Himself is an event, God's Word in Person. By announcing Him, the Apostles lead their listeners to encounter Him" - Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI

Before I became Catholic, I loved the Scriptures and hearing them preached (and I still do). But there was always something that was missing - even though I wouldn't have admitted it. It wasn't that I doubted having a real relationship with the Lord Jesus, but it always seemed to be of a somewhat distant kind - at an arm's length, so to speak. But  that was not the kind of relationship that our Lord called us to. Jesus calls us to have a deep and intimate relationship with Him. What I never realised was that a relationship based solely on words and preaching is not enough - rather it can tend to lead to a dry sort of rationalism that is more concerned with theology than it is with Theos.

In the words of our Holy Father quoted above, preaching is a good and necessary thing - but it is only a means to an end. And the end is Jesus Christ Himself. If preaching does not lead us to truly experience our Lord Jesus Christ, then it is not true preaching. Now, as a Catholic I realise what was missing in my Protestant history, as good as the preaching was. I was missing the true experience of Christ in His fulness. It was only when I was able to start receiving the Sacraments that I realised that it is in the Word and the Sacraments that Christ makes Himself known to us. And Christ makes Himself known to us in the most intimate of ways when we receive Him - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in Holy Communion.

It is along these lines that we can begin to see one aspect of the beauty of the Mass. The Mass never just ends with the Scripture readings and the homily...it progresses upwards to the climax of Holy Communion. And so true preaching of the Scriptures ultimately prepares us to experience Christ in the most intimate of ways - when we receive Him into our bodies in the Holy Eucharist.