Outside of the Church There is No Salvation

As much as I try to avoid it, I have this knack for getting myself involved in Protestant – Catholic debates. I don’t enjoy the debating...the constant sparring...the hours of time that it saps as I try to give a defence for my Catholic faith – especially when it is with people whom I love, and consider as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yet, even as I try to steer clear of the debates, I am always reminded that if I remain silent when I should say something, I will have to give an account for it when I stand before the Lord at the Final Judgement. And so, I take up the mantle, often reluctantly, but pray that in some small way, God is using me to plant seeds in the hearts of those that I enter into discussions with.

An interesting thing that I have noticed a few times in these debates is that just when you seem to be making some progress, the Protestant debater will seek to divert the subject by randomly introducing an argument based on the Catholic Church’s position of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” – outside of the Church there is no salvation.

The basis of the argument

Their argument usually follows this sort of logic:

• A – Catholics say that outside of the Church there is no salvation
• B – Catholics say that the Catholic Church is the only true Church established by Christ
• C – Catholics also say that non-Catholic Christians are still Christian and can be saved

Therefore, they argue, that if A and B are right, then C must be false...or else, if A and C are right, then B must be false.

The solution to the argument

Whilst these arguments sound plausible on the surface level, all they really do is betray that the Protestant arguing these things does not understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches regarding these things.

So, what DOES the Catholic Church mean when she says that “outside of the Church there is no salvation”?

Before looking at the Church’s teaching specifically, it would be worthwhile to be reminded of the reason that the Church has established this teaching.

Why does the Church teach “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”?

The basis for the Church’s teaching is that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and that no man comes to the Father but by Him (Jn 14:6). In other words, the foundation of the Church’s teaching is that outside of Christ there is no salvation. But the Church doesn’t stop there, because Christ didn’t stop there.

Jesus emphatically taught that He would establish and build His Church – not just for convenience’ sake; but also for the sake that His Body would continue His work of salvation in the world after His Ascension into Heaven. St. Paul developed this doctrine by proclaiming that the Church is nothing less than the Body of Christ, and Jesus Christ is her Head. In this way, St. Paul reminds us that Christ and His Church are inseparably ONE. You cannot be IN Christ if you are not IN His Body, the Church.

And this is one reason why the New Testament constantly reminds us that baptism is necessary for salvation – because baptism is the “door” by which we enter the Church – it is through baptism that we are born again into the family of God (which is another image that St. Paul uses for the Church in 1 Tim 3:15).

So, the reason that the Church teaches “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is because she is inseparably united to Christ, and outside of Christ there is no salvation.

What does the Church mean when she teaches “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”?

Now that we’ve established WHY the Church teaches this truth, it still doesn’t shed any light on the apparent contradiction whereby Catholics can consider non-Catholic Christians to be brothers in Christ.

Let’s start by saying what the Church does NOT mean – “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” does NOT mean that only those people who are visibly members of the Catholic Church will be saved. And this is where most Protestants get unstuck. Yes – it is true that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ. But that doesn’t mean that only Catholics will be saved.

The first thing to understand is that it is through the Sacrament of Baptism that we are united to Christ (Rom 6:3-4). Because baptism can be performed by anyone, the Catholic Church accepts that many Protestants have been validly baptised. And because the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ, all those who have been baptised into Christ are part of the Catholic Church - even though they may not accept or acknowledge this. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it:

“All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” – CCC # 818b

All those who have been baptised into Christ are, by virtue of their baptism, united to the Catholic Church. However, because they are not in FULL communion with the Church, that union is imperfect. The Council Fathers at Vatican II affirmed this when they said:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honoured with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.” – Lumen Gentium # 15

“Men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion.” – Unitatis Redintegratio # 3

To restate it – all who have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ...and because of Christ’s inseparable union with His Church, all who have been baptised into Christ have been baptised into the Catholic Church. In the case of our Protestant brethren, the union is not perfect – but it is still a union nonetheless.

This is why it is possible to affirm that outside of the Church there is no salvation – and at the same time to affirm that those who are not in perfect union with the Catholic Church can indeed be saved. The apparent contradiction is resolved when we see that even Protestants are included “within the Church” by virtue of their baptism.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t have to work towards unity. The very fact that Christianity is divided is a scandal to the world, and a hindrance to the Gospel. Which is why Vatican II also issued the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) as part of the understanding that all Christians, and ESPECIALLY Catholics, should be compelled by the love of Christ to do what we can to foster unity with our separated brethren and pray that all Christians may oneday be united together again in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The argument from “Anathemas”

Another complaint that frequently emerges is the anathemas that the Catholic Church has pronounced over her 2,000 year history...particularly those that arose during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. For example, the Council of Trent said that:

“If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” – Fourth Session

In other words, the Council of Trent condemned as anathema those who don’t accept the books that many Protestants today call the “Apocrypha”.

Most Protestants today don’t accept the Catholic Canon of the Old Testament – therefore, the argument goes, that they must be anathema. But they see this as a contradiction – how can they be considered as Christian and anathema at the same time?

How do the Anathemas fit into the Church’s teaching of Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus?

We have established what the Church means when she says that outside of the Church there is no salvation – and that Protestants are not “outside of the Church”. But how should we understand the anathemas in light of this? And do these two thoughts contradict one another?

The first thing to bear in mind is that the anathemas must be understood in the context of the time they were pronounced. Anathemas are usually issued by the Church to counter heresies that were being battled at that specific time in history. For example, the anathemas of the Council of Trent were pronounced to address the heresies that had emerged as a result of the Protestant Reformation.

The next thing to remember is that the Catholic Church does not claim to have binding authority over non-Catholics. So the anathemas of the Council of Trent were aimed at Catholics who had become Protestants and were subsequently teaching against the doctrines of the Church. They were Catholics who willingly rejected the Church’s teaching – and so the Church had the duty to declare the anathemas as part of her Divine duty of protecting and shepherding God’s Flock.

That’s an important point to grasp – when the anathemas were pronounced, they were pronounced over Catholics who willingly rejected the faith that they once held to be true. So, for Protestants today, living in the 21st century, the Church's position is that they cannot be blamed for the schism that arose in the 16th century. As such, the Church considers Protestants today as brothers in Christ – and not anathema.

Here’s what the Catechism has to say on the matter:

“In fact, in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.” – CCC # 817

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” – CCC # 818

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to ‘Catholic unity’." – CCC # 819

Thus, whilst the anathemas could be considered as binding upon men like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who knew better when they willingly rejected their Catholic faith; they cannot be held as binding upon those, those who through no fault of their own, are found in congregations which follow Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings – because they cannot be held responsible for the sin of schism that men like Luther and Calvin were guilty of.

Do Protestants need to become Catholic?

When presented with the above explanation of the Catholic Church’s position, Protestants, without conceding the argument, may sometimes accept that it is at least a logical and reasonable response. But, the usual comeback is then “OK – so I actually don’t need to become Catholic in order to be saved”.

Strictly speaking, that is true – but it is also a cop-out because it indicates that the person making such a statement seems to be more concerned about comfort than he is about truth.

Not only that, but because he has been presented with the truth, he has also been presented with the opportunity to seek out that truth. And to ignore that opportunity would be unwise in light of the Lord’s words that “to whom much has been given, much will be required” (Lk 12:48).

This sort of thinking is also dangerous in that a person may end up becoming fully convinced of the truthfulness of the Catholic faith, and yet still choose to remain outside of full communion with the Catholic Church. A conscious rejection of truth is a conscious rejection of Christ, because Jesus Christ is Himself THE Truth. In this way, such a person, by their conscious decision to reject truth, ends up separating himself from Christ.

Why is this so important?

It is important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, because truth is absolute and truth really does matter. Jesus Christ is the Truth, and as lovers of Christ, Christians must continue to seek the truth in Christ until they have found it in all its fullness.

Related to this, the second reason is that misconceptions are a hindrance to the pursuit of truth. So, it is necessary that misconceptions be cleared up.

Thirdly, because the divisions that exist within Christianity are a scandal to the world and it is the duty of all Christians to strive in love for the unity that Christ Himself desired and prayed for. Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism summed it up nicely:

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.” – Unitatis Redintegratio # 1

The Power of the Resurrection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Season of Lent and the celebration of the Easter Triduum, leading up to the Easter Vigil, are important observances for us as Catholics. But we can sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that they are simply commemorations of historical events that transpired 2,000 years ago. They are so much more than that...and they can be powerfully effective in our lives.

Consider the Season of Lent. Through this observance, we are called to remember and draw strength from the strength of our Lord Jesus who overcame His temptations. But when we think how many times we fail in our Lenten commitments, rather than give in we should allow ourselves to be reminded that we are not strong enough to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil alone. No! We can only overcome insofar as we are strengthened by the power of God’s grace. We should also learn that when we fall, God the Good Father in all His graciousness is there to pick us up, to forgive us, and to set us on our way again.

After this extended time of Preparation, we come to Holy Week and specifically the beginning of the Easter Triduum. On Holy Thursday, we celebrate the Mass of the Lord’s Supper in which we are reminded of the events on the night that the Lord was betrayed. The Mass concludes with the stripping of the altar and the Blessed Sacrament being transferred to the Altar of Repose. The Procession itself is quite moving because it signifies the Lord and His disciples leaving the Upper Room – departing for the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. The sombreness of the Holy Thursday Mass is intensified by the fact that after Mass all the lights in the church are extinguished and the faithful leave the church in total silence. Then there are also those who remain with the Lord to watch and pray.

Good Friday follows – with the devotion of the Stations of the Cross in the morning, and the celebration of the Lord’s Passion at 3pm (being the hour at which Jesus gave up His spirit).  

In all of these events, Holy Mother Church is calling us to do more than simply remember what our Lord went through. Rather, we are being called to unite ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ by being immersed completely in all of these events, and so be transformed through them.

But all of these sombre events – Lent, Holy Thursday, the Passion, etc. – would be useless if it wasn’t for that greatest celebration of all – the celebration which all these things prepare us for...the celebration of the Resurrection and Easter!

Easter Sunday marks the highest day in the Catholic Church’s Liturgical Calendar. Why? Because Easter Sunday is the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; and His glorious Resurrection is the whole basis for our faith. As St. Paul reminds us in his first epistle to the Corinthians – if Christ is not risen, then our faith is empty and pointless (1 Cor 15:14). Or as the Catechism states:

“The Resurrection of Jesus is the crowning truth of our faith in Christ, a faith believed and lived as the central truth by the first Christian community; handed on as fundamental by Tradition; established by the documents of the New Testament; and preached as an essential part of the Paschal mystery along with the cross...” – (CCC # 638, emphasis mine)
 

As Catholics, we are quite familiar with the idea of being united with Christ in our sufferings (Col 1:24). When we are sick or struggling with some sort of hardship, we often hear the advice to “offer it up”. Now, this is great advice, because when we unite the sufferings that we endure with those of Christ, they are given redemptive value [see here,  here, and here  for more on this]. But this isn’t the whole story...

Just as we are called to unite ourselves with our Lord in His Passion and Death, what we are called to during the Season of Easter is to unite ourselves with His Resurrection. In other words, it is not just about being united to His sufferings – it is about being united with Him in His fullness.

This was such an important theme for St. Paul that he went so far as to say that he counted all things as nothing more than dung for the sake of gaining the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3:8). He went on to explain what he meant by saying that his desire was “to know Christ and the power of His Resurrection and the sharing of His sufferings by becoming like Him in His death” (Phil 3:10, NRSV).

What did St. Paul mean when he said that he wanted to share in Christ’s sufferings, and to know Him and the power of His resurrection? The word that St. Paul uses for “sharing” in Phil 3:10 (i.e. koinonia) is the same word that he uses in 1 Cor 10:16 to speaks about our “communion” in the Eucharist is our being united completely with the Lord Jesus [e.g. see here ].

So, for St. Paul, to share in Christ’s sufferings and know Him and the power of His Resurrection was more than having a theoretical knowledge. Rather, his desire was an intimate knowledge of Christ – an experiential knowledge that comes only from being completely united and immersed in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, what does it mean to “know the power of Christ’s Resurrection”? To understand this, we need to understand what St. Paul meant by “the power of the Resurrection”.  In Eph 1:20, St. Paul talks about this “power of the Resurrection” when he says that “God put His power to work in Christ when He raised Him from the dead”. But what is so amazing is that he also says in Eph 1:19 that it is this same “power of the Resurrection” which is at work in the lives of the faithful.

How is this so? Well, it all starts with our baptism when, by the power of God, we are born again and raised to new life in Christ [see here and  here].

St. Paul says as much when he tells us that “all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death” and that “just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father”, so we too have been raised to “walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:3-5, see also Col 2:11-12).

St. Paul reminds us that if we have been raised to Christ in baptism (Col 2:11-12), we are called to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated, at the right hand of God” (Col 3:1). This means that as new creations, we are called to walk in a way that is worthy of the name “Christian”. And this means to walk in holiness and obedience as imitators of Jesus Christ; it means to live in the way of self-denial for the love of God and of our neighbour.

In this respect, we see that the Seasons of Lent and Easter are not mutually exclusive. Whilst the “flavour” of each Season may be different, the goal of conformity to Christ is always the same. Lent is what prepares us for Easter, and Easter is fruition of what has taken place during Lent. So, whilst our fasting has given way to feasting, may we continue this Easter Season with the same spirit of faith, hope, and love that we sought to cultivate during the Lenten Season.

Why I Became Catholic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been Catholic for three years now, having been received into the Church in the Easter Vigil of 2010. My journey home to the Holy Catholic Church was more theological than it was emotional. That’s not to say that there was no emotion involved – there certainly was. But the main catalyst that the Lord used to bring me home was theology.

For some time now, a few people have asked me to post my conversion story on my blog page, but because of the depth of theological controversy that I encountered along the way, I have up until now shyed away from it.

But, towards the end of last year I finally gave in and decided that I was going to put pen to paper and to put together something of a “testimony” of my conversion from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.

Well, I spent about three weeks just working on the draft……….which was 15 pages long……….in short-hand……….and that wasn’t even delving into all the reasons for my theological shifts. Then I started typing……….and I found that 2 pages of my short-hand notes equated to about 5 pages of type……..

Needless to say, I started rethinking whether I actually wanted to finish the work of my conversion story, which for most people would probably just end up being long, dry, and boring. But, that’s when I found something that I had completely forgotten about.

When I first started taking the steps of being received into the Catholic Church, a few of my non-Catholic Christian friends were shocked, and one or two of them actually took the time to e-mail me and ask me about my reasons. My response to them back then was short and succinct, so I thought what better way to share the story of my conversion that to let the three-year-ago version of myself tell the story…so, here goes….

We most certainly expected lots of eyebrows to raise at our move [to the Catholic Church], but I can assure you that we were not looking forward to it. In fact, it was one of the things that made us a bit apprehensive about becoming Catholic...we expected that most of our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters would end up writing us off as apostates. There is little more one could expect given the massive misconceptions amongst Protestants as to what Catholics believe. Anyway, our hearts were finally settled when the local parish priest reminded us that when we stand before God in judgment, His concern is not going to be others - we must give our own account for our own selves. What also helped was that as we delved more and more into Catholic teaching we saw more and more of Christ, and we fell more and more in love with the Church that he founded 2,000 years ago and through the Traditions handed down from the Apostles continues to stand the test of time. There is no other institution on earth that could go through what the Catholic Church has been through and still be going strong today...unless it was guarded and protected by God Almighty.
 
There is no one particular reason why my wife and I became Catholic. Rather there are so many of them that we could go on forever. So, rather than being cumbersome with all the details, I have tried to highlight to the best of my ability some of the more pertinent things that influenced us. As I look back and reflect, I can clearly see how the Lord has led us to the Catholic Church even though we were completely oblivious to His plan all along.
 
The seeds for our conversion were probably planted way back when we were part of a dispensational independent Baptist church in South Africa. The pastor, who is still the “chief elder” there, is an excellent Bible teacher. I will always remember the most important things that he has always stressed in his ministry:

• never take anything for granted – always study the Scriptures
• love the Lord Jesus with everything that you are - this means that obedience to Christ will often take us where we would never dream of going 
• love the Church because this is what Christ loves and died for

When we were still in our dating years, my now-wife and I left South Africa and moved to New Zealand…and when we left, we were far from being obedient Christians. But we weren't in New Zealand for long before God brought us back to Himself. We got involved in a local dispensational independent Baptist church and everything was going along just fine. I was appointed as a deacon in the church, and I was working closely with the pastor with the intention of training for the pastorate. That was until an old friend from the Baptist church in South Africa told us that their church had gone through a major eschatalogical shift based on a verse-by-verse exposition of Matthew 24. Well, I studied and studied and studied Matthew 24 and ended up coming to the same conclusions as them. This was a massive problem in our Baptist church in New Zealand, because the pastor (and his Mission Board) was committed whole-heartedly to dispensationalism. To cut a long story short, we were basically forced out of the church...and so started our journey to find the fullness of truth.
 
As horrible as the experience of being forced out of a congregation that we loved was, it was a good opportunity for us to really challenge a lot of things that we had taken for granted. As I studied, I was becoming more and more influenced by Reformed thinking - which led us to start fellowshipping with Reformed Baptists. But, as I got deeper into Reformed theology, a lot of my previous theology started to unravel.
 
I became convinced that baptism by immersion was not the Scriptural mode of baptism, but rather baptism by sprinkling. However, I still maintained that one should only be baptised after making a profession of faith. So, you could say that I was a sort of Anabaptist of the Reformation...believer's baptism by sprinkling. Be that as it was, I respected the authority of the local Reformed Baptist church and wasn't going to make it an issue of fellowship. That was until our understanding of the covenant became more focused.
 
As I began to understand the idea of covenant, I saw that “believers' only” baptism wasn't biblical either. Rather, the very essence of covenant necessitates that our children are included, and so I became fully Reformed i.e. I now held to the teaching of the Reformers (like Calvin and Luther) that infant baptism was Scriptural. This was opposed to my thinking of so many years that the Reformers maintained infant baptism simply because they couldn't let go of that old Romanistic teaching (oh, how ironic when I look back now). Again, it wasn't an issue of fellowship until it became an issue of obedience i.e. we only left the Reformed Baptist church when our first daughter was born so that we could (in obedience to Christ) have her baptised as a full member of God's covenant.

Being fully Reformed, I delved more and more into Reformed theology, with particular focus on the spearhead of the Reformation i.e. Sola Scriptura. In addition, John Calvin became a big focus because, of all the Reformers, I believed he had the best grasp on the issues. Of particular significance to me was the Reformed teaching on worship - particularly the Regulative Principle i.e. that God should only be worshipped as commanded in the Scriptures; anything not commanded in the Scriptures was forbidden. As the Regulative Principle, firmly based on Sola Scriptura, began to take hold in my thinking I started to see that Reformed Christians incorporated things into their worship that weren't commanded; and not only that, but they even disagreed amongst themselves about the interpretation of the Regulative Principle. Mostly, I think that this was due to most Reformed Christians not understanding their own principles of the elements of worship and the circumstances of worship. According to traditional and conservative Reformed scholars things like what is sung and accompaniment were elements of worship and should find commandment in the Scriptures before being done. After intense study, I was convinced that singing hymns, choruses, etc. in corporate worship was not in accordance with the Regulative Principle - only the Psalms were to be sung (the strongest argument for this position coming from Col 3:16 & Eph 5:19). I also became a strong proponent for a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper and ultimately agreed with the teaching that children (as full members of the covenant) should also partake. I had solid biblical arguments for my convictions, and I brought these up with pastors from time to time. After all, the cry of the Reformed is supposed to be "reformed and always reforming".

It was frustrating (and also interesting in hindsight) because the responses I received were hardly biblical. In fact, one Reformed pastor made the comment to me that the Regulative Principle is simply a "wax-nose" that can be moulded any which way that you desired. The objections raised to my points ultimately ranged from what was practical - to a different flavour of Reformed tradition (e.g. Puritan vs. Continental). And this was from men who were thoroughly committed to the Sola Scriptura and Reformed teaching.

To my biblical arguments I began to add the argument of Reformed Tradition (particularly Calvin) and when it suited me, the Early Church Fathers. After all, they were much closer to the Apostles, and where they agreed with Scripture, we could validly use them as support. What I failed to realise was that my interpretation of the Scriptures was different from the Fathers…but what I did realise (and it became more and more frustrating) was that every Christian interprets the Scriptures differently. 

After many theological discussions on the Regulative Principle and the numerous interpretations held by so many different Reformed Christians and denominations, I became completely disillusioned with it. After all, how regulative can a principle be when it is always relative? And so I discarded the Regulative Principle because it truly is a wax nose.
 
By God's providence, at around the same time I had been in contact with a Reformed Episcopilian priest. In my discussions with him, he helped me to see the value of tradition in the history of the Church (but specifically in the Anglican way of only wanting to accept the first 5 centuries).
 
He also helped me to see the importance of the succession of authority in the Church. He showed me that towards the end of his ministry, John Calvin regretted the way that he had tampered with church government, and how he hoped to restore an episcopal order in the church so that the various churches in Europe that had arisen due to the "free thinking" of the Reformation could be united. Calvin actually approached the Church of England in an attempt to have ordinations in Europe recognised so that there could be a valid line of succession from the Apostles. But his letters were intercepted by certain English bishops who were supporters of the Catholic Church and they [Calvin’s letters] never found their way to their intended destination.

 

Up until this point, I understood that a valid church could not be started unless someone had authority to start that church by those in authority e.g. I couldn't simply start my own church because I couldn't find a church that agreed with me. I would only be able to start a church if I had been validly sent by a church ministry which had the authority to send. But I never worked this understanding to its logical conclusion i.e. where did John Calvin get his authority from? All Protestant pastors (perhaps with the exception of some Anglicans, depending on who you are talking to) can only trace their authority back as far as someone who somewhere along the line assumed authority for himself. That's when I realised that the Reformers had no right whatsoever to leave the Church of Jesus Christ and assume their own authority in setting up churches according to their own whims. Unfortunately, that is what happened. And every single Christian denomination that has set itself up since then has at some point adoted a self-appointed authority. What's more, almost every single Protestant denomination claims to base their system of beliefs on Sola Scriptura. However, what I came to realise is that "Sola Scriptura" really means "Sola Scriptura as I interpret it". So, the Sola Scriptura is nothing more than My Interpretation Alone (or my pastor's interpretation for that matter). In this way, Sola Scriptura is also a wax nose.

What is really interesting is that the Scriptures never actually teach Sola Scriptura. Nor do they teach that the Scriptures are for private individuals to interpret. Yet, private interpretation since the Reformation has led to the formation of over 35,000 denominations. I doubt whether this was Christ's intention in His High Priestly prayer when He prayed that the Church would be one. 

That's when I really started to dig into the early Church. How could we as Protestants, almost 2,000 years removed from the facts, determine what Christ and His Apostles meant when they lived. The Church Fathers, much closer to the Apostles, and some of them even personal disciples of the Apostles, began to hold much more weight in how I should read and understand the Scriptures.

The Anglican priest I mentioned also helped me to be far more gracious towards Catholics. He showed me that we can call them brothers and sisters in Christ even though we disagreed with a lot of their teachings. He pointed out that a lot of what we thought Catholics believed were misconceptions and required a bit more of an understanding of things from their perspective. Well, that was okay and I was happy to accept it. I accepted Catholics as potential brothers and sisters in Christ, but it would snow in the Sahara before I would dream of becoming one. And at that point I had no real interest in finding out more about the Catholic faith. Instead, we became Anglicans because it meant that could stay reformed (rather than Reformed) and adopt a form of catholicity (in the Anglican sense of the word). It was kind of a middle ground that maintained that the Catholic Church was still in serious error.

Being Anglican in NZ was interesting. There were things that we didn't agree with (e.g. ordination of women) but we felt that the spirit of Christ compelled us to be gracious and humble, leading by example and prayer for change. But it wasn't long before we saw that this approach simply wouldn't work in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion worldwide is under huge attack from liberals who want to have the worldwide Communion adopt ordination of homosexuals. In some Provinces it is already accepted...and in others it is seriously rejected. I personally think that this will ultimately lead to a split in the Anglican Communion. What was a real eye-opener for us was how powerless the Archbishop of Canterbury was/is in this whole fiasco. Scripture and the historic traditions are completely against homosexuality, and yet the Anglican Church which claims to hold to the Scriptures, and some of historical tradition (in varying degrees depending on which Anglican you speak to), is powerless to do anything about these liberal Anglicans who threatened to destroy the Anglican Church. I started to appreciate the idea of having an authoritative figure like the Pope but I still wouldn't have dreamed of calling him my authoritative figure. However, it did start to perk my interest a little more.... 

Oneday, I was reading the newspaper and I stumbled across an advert for the Catholic Enquiry Centre in NZ - inviting people to obtain some free material to tell them more about Christianity in general and the Catholic faith in particular. Well, I was now interested enough to find out exactly what it was that Catholics believed. The reading material arrived and I just couldn't put it down. I was awestruck at how Christ-centred Catholic teaching was, and I couldn't believe how much of Catholic teaching was pretty much in line with some of my own thinking. The difference was that there seemed to be something in Catholic teaching that I was missing all along...something vital, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. Well, this has to be a smoke-screen I thought. It can't be true - it's a decoy to entice unsuspecting and naive Christians into the Catholic Church. So, I started reading more...I started listening to more Catholic teachers. Well, it wasn't long and the holes started appearing on the wrong side of the argument. All the holes were in the Protestant position. The Catholic position was SOLID. The Protestant position became shakier and shakier and eventually crumbled like a house of cards. Somewhere along that line I finally realised that Protestantism was built on a foundation of sand; and I found that it was the Catholic Church that was built upon the foundation of rock. The final straw that broke the camel's back was finally being shown that the Scriptures are not the pillar and foundation of the truth - simply because the Scriptures are subject to a multitude of interpretations. Instead, St. Paul clearly taught St. Timothy that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). And that Church that Paul was referring to is the same Church that remains undefeated to this day under the oversight of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the rock upon whom our Lord built His Church. And most assuredly, the gates of hell have never prevailed against it.

From that point I started reading Catholic theology from a perspective of faith rather than criticism. All my doubts finally melted away...the Lord truly helped my unbelief. I started looking more deeply into the Church Fathers and started studying history from a Catholic perspective. WOW! I have never felt more blessed. I started praying the Rosary because I now saw it for what it really was....a prayerful walk with Mary, our Lord's closest disciple; a beautiful prayer for meditating deeply on the person and work of our Lord Jesus. 

God had led me to the treasury of truth openly displayed in the Catholic Church - the last place on earth I would ever have dreamed of finding it. The Catholic Church really is a family/household. We have God as our Father; Christ is our elder brother; Mary is our Mother; and all the saints are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Like the prodigal son, God has brought us home, and we cannot praise and thank Him enough for this great gift that He has given us. I only wish that I could describe in words the change that has happened in our lives because of this journey home. All I can say is that if you are on that path searching for the truth, then don’t stop looking until you find it. 

With my hand on my heart, I would encourage you to find out more about the Catholic faith, but find out from a faithful Catholic. Unfortunately, Protestants do not understand Catholicism. For example, most Protestants think that Catholics worship Mary and pray to her like they pray to God. This is not true. Catholics don't pray to Mary (at least not in the sense that Protestants think). We ask Mary, as our Mother (Jn 19:26) and the Mother of our Lord (Lk 1:43) to pray for us. Our prayers to God are on a completely different level (similar to how your discussions with friends are on a totally different level to your discussions with your spouse, which are again totally different to your discussions with God). The same is true of the saints. We ask Mary and the saints to assist us in our prayers because we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is One. If we can ask our brothers and sisters on earth to pray for us, surely we can also ask our brothers and sisters in heaven to pray for us, especially since their prayer in the glorified state is far more perfect than ours on earth can ever be.

Another misconception is that Catholics hate the Scriptures and the Catholic Church tries to hide them from the faithful. This couldn't be further from the truth. After all, if it weren't for the Catholic Church, Protestants would not have the Scriptures. The Catholic Church was God's agent, as the pillar and ground of truth, to firstly determine the New Testament Canon, and then to faithfully preserve the Scriptures throughout history. Catholics love the Scriptures far more than any Protestant could imagine. In a single Mass liturgy, there are more Scripture readings and allusions than a month of Sundays' services in most Protestant churches (apart from Anglican churches of course because Anglicans follow a liturgy very similar to the Catholics). Interestingly, the focus in most Protestant churches is the pulpit. This might give the impression that the Scriptures are central...but what it really tells is that the preacher is central along with his interpretation of the Scripture he is preaching on. [[[It's funny (not in the ha-ha kind of way) because it just goes to show that every Christian has his own pope - whether it is himself, or his pastor, or his favourite theologian]]]. There is far more preaching in Protestant churches than there is Scripture reading. However, in a Catholic Mass the first half of the service is dedicated to the Word; the second half to the Sacrament. The first half is dedicated to various Scripture readings: Old Testament and New. As a lover of the Bible, I was astounded when I first realised that the liturgy of the Word in a Catholic Mass is so Scripturally focused. But more than the Scriptures, or the sermon / homily, the supreme focus of the Mass is Jesus Christ Himself…present the in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. In the Catholic Church, it is not a pulpit that is central; it is the altar i.e. the place where the once-for-all Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ is made present for us today. And so, Jesus and His Communion of Himself completely with us is the whole focus of the Mass - not the priest; not the homily; not the beautiful decor - it is Christ that we all lift our eyes to behold when bread and wine are miraculously changed by God Himself into the life-giving Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ...for us.

The amazing thing for me is that I am still a babe; I have only understood and seen the tip of the iceberg (if indeed that much). If this is the beginning, I can't wait to see the depth and majesty of the treasures that God has in store. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehesible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!

I hope that I haven't been too long-winded...but I am glad that I have had the opportunity of sharing the most important points of our journey to the Catholic Church. 

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!

 

Ezra Reading the Law - a Foreshadow of the Mass

The First Reading for this past Sunday (Third Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C) holds a very special place for me. It is a reading that I distinctly remember from my days as a Baptist, and it had a profound effect on shaping my love for the Scriptures. The reading was Neh 8:2-6, 8-10:

Ezra the priest brought the law before the  assembly, which consisted of men, women, and those children old enough to understand. Standing at one end of the open place that was before the Water Gate, he read out of the book from daybreak till midday, in the presence of the men, the women, and those children old enough to understand; and all the people listened attentively to the book of the law. Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that had been made for the occasion. He opened the scroll so that all the people might see it— for he was standing higher up than any of the  people —; and, as he opened it, all the people rose. Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people, their hands raised high, answered, “Amen, amen!” Then they bowed down and prostrated themselves before the LORD, their faces to the ground. Ezra read plainly from the book of the law of God,interpreting it so that all could understand what was read. Then Nehemiah, that is, His Excellency, and Ezra the priest-scribe and the Levites who were instructing the people said to all the people: “Today is holy to the LORD your God. Do not be sad, and do not weep” — for all the people were weeping as they heard the words of the law. He said further: “Go, eat rich foods and drink sweet drinks, and alot portions to those who had nothing prepared; for today is holy to our LORD. Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the LORD must be your strength!”

I remember when my Baptist pastor preached on this passage, he instilled within me a love for God’s Word and a love for hearing the preaching of God’s Word. I remember that the sermon was a powerful one which showed how important God’s Word was for God’s people – after all, it must have been important if the people were prepared to stand for six hours while they listened to the reading of the Torah. And then Ezra took up his place on a pulpit and explained the Scriptures to the people.

From that day I have been convinced that people should stand when they hear the Scriptures being read in a public assembling, and that the Scriptures should be powerfully expounded so as to open hearts and minds to pursue deeper holiness. In addition, as a Protestant, this passage was for me a strong proof of Sola Scriptura and the centrality of the pulpit in the church building, given that this was where the pastor would preach God’s Word. 

I look back now and see how some of my understanding was wrongly coloured by my pre-conceived Protestant assumptions (e.g. it is not the pulpit that should be central, but the altar; because it is not the preacher that is central, but Christ). But, there was also much good that I learned as a Protestant – which I am now able, as a Catholic, to more fully embrace. This is because Protestantism contains traces of truth (varying in greater and lesser degrees, depending which denomination and church you attend), whereas the Catholic faith is the fullness of Truth.  

Something that struck me very early on in my conversion to the Catholic Church is that the Mass is filled with far more Scripture than ANY Protestant service I ever attended. Apart from every action in the Liturgy being saturated with Sacred Scripture, the first half of the Mass is specifically titled “The Liturgy of the Word” – because during the first part of the Mass, we are fed with Christ from the Table of the Word. At every Mass on a Sunday or Solemnity, we hear three specific readings from Scripture – Old Testament (Prophets), New Testament (Apostles), and Gospel. And there is even a Responsorial Psalm thrown in as well. [This differs for weekday Masses, where the Old Testament Reading is omitted; and during the Easter Season, where the Old Testament Reading is replaced by a reading from the book of Acts]. These Scriptures are read from the Ambo, a wooden pulpit made specifically for that purpose.

What’s more, out of reverence for the Person and Work of Christ, the entire congregation stands for the reading of the Gospel.

After the readings, the priest (or deacon) will break open the Scriptures in the Homily, and seek to apply the Scriptures to the lives of those who have ears to hear.

Just considering these things, we can already see that the Holy Mass is faithful to the pattern followed by Ezra.  But if we dig deeper, we begin to see that what happens in the Holy Mass is actually closer to the pattern set by Ezra than a Protestant worship service.

 

Many Protestants cringe at the idea of “ritual” in worship, as they do the idea of following a liturgical calendar. But notice that Ezra’s reading and exposition of the was a ritual that occurred within the context of a liturgical calendar on the annual Feast of Booths (cp Neh 8:2 with Deut 31:10-13). Like Israel of old, the Church continues to adopt the practice of rituals within the context of a liturgical calendar.

Notice also that Ezra forbade the people from mourning on this specific occasion, given that it was not in accordance with the liturgical occasion being celebrated. That sounds remarkably similar to the Catholic practise of observing different liturgical seasons in different ways e.g. Lent and Advent are times focussed on fasting, preparation, and sombreness; whereas Easter and Christmas are filled with joy and celebration.

Something that is particularly interesting here is that Ezra exercised his authority as a priest to command the people not to mourn on this occasion – and he didn’t make any appeal to Scripture (contrary to the notion of Sola Scriptura). Rather, it was by virtue of his authority as a priest that the people were bound to obey.

Moreover, we see that the celebration itself was liturgical in nature. The people all stood upon the opening of the book; then Ezra pronounced a blessing, to which all the people had a uniform response (“Amen, Amen”) whilst all raising their hands. Then they all prostrated themselves and worshipped the Lord. This uniformity of action and response points to a liturgical structure which was already in place – there is no way that this uniformity of action and response could ever be achieved in a setting where everyone was acting independently and spontaneously.

 

This highlights some very important points...

 

Catholics are often accused of hating Scripture, and rejecting it in favour of traditions and rituals. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. Without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible as we know it. Not only was the New Testament Canon (which is accepted by all Protestants) officially defined by the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church has also been the defender of Sacred Scripture for 2,000 years and will continue to do so until the Lord returns. The Catholic Church loves and venerates Sacred Scripture, and everything that the Church does and teaches is grounded firmly in Scripture.

As we have seen from the example of Ezra’s reading of the Torah, this includes ritualistic worship. In other words, ritualistic liturgical worship is Scriptural worship. In fact, this passage in Nehemiah shows that Sacred Scripture is not only at home, but is also intended to be read and understood, within the liturgy of God’s people.

 

Despite their good intentions, those Protestants who claim to reject any form of liturgical ritual and accuse Catholics of false worship (simply because our worship incorporates ritual) do so wrongly. On the contrary, this passage from Nehemiah shows that ritual has its place in the worship of God’s people.

 

[I might add that Protestants who supposedly reject “rituals” have their own rituals. They claim that their worship and prayer is relatively spontaneous, and thus “led by the Spirit”; but one doesn’t have to attend their worship services or prayer meetings for very long to notice underlying structures and patterns in their worship (aka liturgical rituals), or particular phrases within their prayers that are not unlike “rote” prayers often used by Catholics].

But there is one more point in this passage which points to the Mass as being more faithful to Ezra’s pattern than a Protestant worship service.

 

The first part of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word, is very clearly foreshadowed in this Old Testament ceremony. But what about the second part, the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

 

Ezra tells God’s people that they are not to mourn; instead they were instructed to go their way, and eat the fat and drink the wine; and send portions to those who were without.

 

This, I think, is an allusion to the Eucharist because when we celebrate the Eucharist, we are celebrating the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The Eucharist is a wedding feast in which we are fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then at the end of the Mass we are dismissed, not unlike Ezra’s dismissal of the people, to go on our way (“Go, the Mass is ended”) so that we can live lives filled with the joy and presence of Jesus Christ.

 

To eat the “rich foods” and “drink its sweet wine” meant to eat and drink the very best that the Promised Land had to offer. This was the shadow...and its fulfilment is eating and drinking of the very best of our Heavenly Homeland, that is, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

So, as Catholics, we shouldn’t be ashamed of embracing our liturgical rituals. Not only because they are deeply symbolic, but also because they are firmly established in Sacred Scripture. May we also continue to grow in our love for Sacred Scripture, especially when we hear it read in the Mass – because it is the Word of God given to His Holy Catholic Church. As we listen to the Scriptures read in the Liturgy, we receive Jesus in the Table of the Word – which in turn prepares us to receive Him in the Table of the Eucharist.