Sola Something

Two quick responses to your last post.
First, if you are saying that faith is only one way to take advantage of God's gift of salvation, I think we have a strong disagreement. In Romans 4, Paul makes a very strong argument about righteousness (a word we've over-used to mean "morally right", which fact is a forensic courtroom term to pronounce one"in right standing" with the law). In the chapter he argues that Abraham was "in right standing with God" because of his faith, NOT because of anything he may have done otherwise. Dare I say (I won't go all Latin on you ) Faith only.
One might argue that although Abraham is being talked about as being "in right standing with God" because of Faith, doesn't mean that we are to use the same means. However, that is the entire point of Paulo's argument. If we (Gentiles, not law followers; or Jews, law followers) want to be in the same position with God as Abraham was, we need to take him at his word, in faith. Abraham did this concerning the promises God made to him; first about a son, and further about a new land, multitude of descendants, and a promised land. We, Paul argues, are to do this with the promise of salvation.
Second, I seem to be missing something that you will need to explain to me (this is not sarcasm). I am not sure where this list of three unattainable virtues came from but (can you tell me) it would seem to me (speaking again from a biblical standpoint, which I do not apologize for) I would have to argue that faith and hope seem to be two virtues that humans can definitely attain, and not much else(see "Hall of Faith" list in Hebrews 11); never perfectly but, I think easier than prudence, etc.
With the above in mind, I would argue for the complete inability of humanity to accomplish any virtue properly. Thus, arguing that some are attainable and others are not seems a little strange. Just because we find one easier than another does not mean it's attainable. If we break one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking the entire law.

Χάρις

Okay, there seem to be a few things worth discussing here, and I am not sure that I am following which are simply written musings and which are meant to be answered.
When speaking about grace we seem to be mixing up what exactly we are talking about. Grace, as described in the New Testament, seems to be the reason why God gives(i.e. it is not because we have tried really hard and so he thinks we deserve a gift, it is not because he feels obliged, etc.) It is basically because he decided to(no reason but his love for humanity). Thus, to say he gave grace, is to not give the whole story, but only a piece. One would be compelled to ask, "In which way did he give grace?", or "What gift did he deliver wrapped in grace?"

In the case of salvation, the gift is not grace, it is salvation. Grace is the reason and source for God to send himself, manifest through the Son, to to be a sacrifice for mankind.
Therefore, grace need not be attained, it always is. It is the spring from which all good gifts of God come. It is salvation, made possible because of grace that need be attained, and this, by faith. Faith in what. Faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Faith (belief) that the price (atonement) has been taken care of, through Jesus, because of God's hand, inspired by his grace.

As for our part, perhaps we have made it too difficult (or maybe I'm about to make it too simple). We were lost in sin and did not give a rip. The Bible says we were enemies of God, He made the move to correct the sin problem(while we were enemies, thus grace). He came in the form of Jesus, paid the price for humanities sin, and called us to accept it in faith. If accepted, justification takes place(i.e. right standing with God). So it is like this.
I'm thirsty. I'm looking in all the wrong places for refreshment. Someone comes to me and says want a Coke™. I say "Maybe." The individual says, "The Coke™ is here on the table; it is cold and refreshing. If you are thirsty, go ahead and drink it"(sound familiar). The gift has been given. Everything to deal with the problem has been set up(Not be me. I was looking in all the wrong places.) However, I need to step forward and open the can to drink. Until I do, I will remain thirsty. Grace offered the can, my faith needs to drink it.
This is basically the message of Romans, chapter 5.

In da Puddin'

Man, our titles are really going downhill quickly.

As the story goes, Luther, while studying/ teaching at the University of Wittenburg, came across the phrase "the righteousness of God"(Romans 1:17), and it (as he said) "filled him with hate." It was after much struggling with the concept of God's righteousness versus our human depravity, that Luther came to interpret the text, and whole argument of Romans, as most evangelicals do today. Namely, that there is no matter of effort that can bring a humanity drowning in its own sin, to a place where it can stand in God's presence. The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths in his letter to the Romans to dissect the problem of man's sin, the human inability to match up, and God's resulting action.
What action? Placing His Son in the very place we should all be.

Let's take it back!

If we recall the covenant between Abraham and Yahweh, we may remember a strange ancient ceremony, in which Abraham and Yahweh (in the form of a pillar of fire) walk through cut up animals. The whole point of that ceremony was to say "May I become like one of these animals, if I do not keep my part of this covenant." What was the covenant? Basically, follow God and things will go well with you. Reject God and things will go badly. Well, we can assume correctly that God keeps his part of the agreement, and correctly that Abraham's descendants do not.

So, now what?

Well, rather than cut up all of humanity (which would kind of step on the whole reason for all of this; namely that God wants to have a relationship with His creation), a sacrificial system is put in place. Priests (representing Israel) place their hands on a ram (signifying the transfer of Israel's sin onto the animal) and the ram is than offered as a sacrifice. At this point every Israelite should have thought to themselves, "That should've been me. I've broken the covenant over and over, in my choices and in my thoughts." But more importantly they are going to throw one of their great parties. Why? Because they are now seen by God, as washed. The blood of the animal has made them clean before their God.
Had they really sinned? Absolutely! Did they have to pay the immediate price for rejecting God? (of course there were long lasting penalties for sin, but he didn't reach down and squish em' like ants every time they sinned) No way! But they were seen by God as clean.

Now let's jump ahead to the last great Old Testament prophet; St. John the Baptist. His response when he realizes that Jesus is the Messiah is more than just a nice title; it is an announcement. "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the WORLD." (John 1:29-36) Jesus has now taken on the role as the sacrificial lamb, and not just for the people of Israel, but for the world. Gospel(good news) indeed!

So, how does this work with the writings of St. Paul, and further how do Paul's writings work with that of St. James.

Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus makes it quite clear that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. "(Ephesians 2:8-10) This passage has a few nuggets we need to explore.

One, the source of man's salvation is God's grace, and the way we attain it is by faith, or belief in it. Second, it is a gift. One does not work for a gift. By definition a gift is simply given. Thus, thirdly, salvation is NOT attained by works. And finally, (and here is where we find Paul actually agreeing with what we will see St. James saying in his letter) we were created (I think we could argue, recreated) to do good works, which God had planned for us to do.
Thus, Protestants would argue that placing works prior to salvation, places the cart before the horse; works do not gain us salvation, they are a result of it. So, when St. James says, "that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone"(James 2:24), he is not saying that one needs works to be justified, but rather that if one says s/he is a person of faith, but has no works, that they cannot be believed.
It is about portraying one's faith. "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18b) Having the correct doctrine (see vs. 19) is not enough. If one has put their faith in Christ, there should be obvious signs. After all, those who have been "saved through faith...were created in Christ Jesus to do good works." If, therefore, no works are present, one must conclude that that person has not been saved by this grace.

Warning: theological minefield approaching

Here's one that may never be resolved, but to be honest I have never heard the Protestant version of this outside of a history book.
All throughout my checkered Catholic education (ask the MacMan for more background on this issue), the principle information I got about Protestantism is this little thing of justification by faith alone. Now, the way it was presented to me was that Lutherans believed that human nature was so corrupt that any human act is useless, but by the grace of Christ, everyone is redeemed by "accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour". It was as if Jesus put a clean tablecloth to cover an ugly creature in order to make it presentable. This is always compared to the Catholic teaching of justification by faith and good works.

Now that my development in Catholic study has matured somewhat since then, I'm assuming that this way of describing justification by faith alone might be a bit...hmm, let's say, simplistic? I'm curious to hear the real belief on this.

Pax.
Iggy

Equine autopsy

Agreed: the whole Marian devotion thing will never be fully resolved, and that's no surprise. I suppose it's a by-product of sola scriptura vs. Bible & Tradition.

By the way, for all you devoted followers of this blog, the title of my last entry translates into "How great a fear will there be when the Judge will come to settle all things strictly." It's a passage from the Dies Irae; at least Mozart fans would be familiar with this.

It's my turn to offer up a Catholic issue with Protestant teaching. I'll serve that up very soon.

Geez, this is fun.

Pax.
Iggy

Kill the Horse

I'll need a translator for your latin title on that last one. I'm just a simple Protestant with no education in such things.
;-)
Well, I think we've killed this horse. I guess my final word is that Catholic/Christian doctrine should not be a matter of what feels right to us, but what has been declared as truth. It might make us feel better to have someone on the inside, but does that mean we have someone. Or should we simply accept the gospel at face value, which in its essence says the problem has been dealt with in the "God-man" Jesus Christ. Once we start bringing in others who help the process, it really begins to look (to me) like "another gospel" and we know how Paul felt about that.

You're up!

Quantus tremor est futurus quando Judex est venturus cuncta stricte discussurus

I guess the reason why Catholics find the idea of intermediary intercessors appealing is because we make a bigger deal of Christ as Judge more than Protestants do. We, in fact, believe in two of them: the Particular Judgement (happens at the moment of death) and the General Judgement (at the end of the world). I guess it's a by-product of justification by faith alone vs. justification by faith and good works. We're afraid to mess up; we're afraid of being like the servant who buried the talent his lord had given him instead of using it and producing something. In the Tridentine Rite, there are a lot more references to the Last Judgement than there are today. It shows up in the gospel reading for the First Sunday of Advent (1st Sunday of the old liturgical year) and in the Last Sunday after Pentecost (last Sunday of the liturgical year). It's also mentioned at the ceremony of the Paschal Candle at the Easter Vigil. Finally, during All Souls' Day, funerals, and any Mass of the Dead, the sequence Dies Irae is sung or recited; the entire sequence is a vivid picture of the Last Judgement.

I guess Catholics feel that we are constantly under the gun. Jesus is benevolent, and he has provided salvation for us all and made it available. At the same time, if we choose to reject this gift, we feel that the same Jesus will not hesitate to allow us to reap the consequences of our actions. We recognize a potentially PO'd Christ: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting flame." Jesus is all loving, but we also see him as all just. He's like the strict but fair teacher; do you work, and you'll be ok, but mess up, and you have to be accountable.

So Catholics have this dichotomy in our view of Jesus. On the one hand, he's the Good Shepherd who will heal the sick and hang out with the outcast. On the other hand, this is the same Jesus who beat the snot out of the sellers in the Temple and cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit.

That's why we have devotions to the Virgin and the saints; there's no anger with them. They can't grant us anything per se, but they can't throw us into hell either.

Jesus is the Pontifex, the Bridge-Builder, who made the connection to salvation for us; he alone was able to do that. At the same time, we Catholics are never sure that our "wedding garment" is proper. Are all our accounts settled? Will Christ be pleased with us, or will he be upset at one of our deliberate faults? There's a mix of love and of nervousness as we try to cross this bridge. What we see the Virgin and the saints for are two reason: one, to give us an example of how to cross that bridge, and two, to hold our hands while doing it.

Pax.
Iggy

Parables

Thank you for the modern day Yeshua-like story. Sounds like you've learned from the best. However, I would argue that there is a gap in your parable. The gap would be the part where the "boss" repeatedly tells the employee that s/he doesn't need to go through anyone else; that if there is a problem, it has already been taken care of, so stop trying to confuse the issue by bringing in mediators (Why is this difficult to comprehend? Because we've never heard of a boss like that). As the Letter to the Hebrews argues, Jesus is the ultimate, because He is the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate king, and the ultimate priest (mediator) all wrapped up in one(see Hebrews 4:14-16) . Notice what this reference says about approaching the "throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need." Why would we need to ask any one else (be it Mother or Saint) for help when the Creator of all that exists has offered it?

Throughout the history of the Church (even the Protestant Church, which is thought by some to be "outside the fold"), there has been a tendency for followers of Jesus to refuse the honor/gift of stepping into God's presence(much like the employee of your story), but Paul explained in Roman 8:1-4 that the only thing that was holding us back (sin) has been taken care of, and that there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." If we do not want to feel guilty, ironically, the only one we should be approaching is Jesus.

Now, in reality, I know I am not debating a simple belief, but a whole Catholic lifestyle. I am arguing (it would seem) against hundreds of visions of Mary, appearing and calling people to return to he(?). But it seems to me that many of these appearances of Mary bring up a similar point to one brought up at a fantastic presentation on the Da Vinci Code I had the honor of sitting in on a few weeks ago, and that is the idea of making Jesus more like us, so he is easier to worship. Dan Brown gave Him a wife, Catholic's want to give Him an everlasting Mother, whose ear we can whisper into when we are afraid we've ticked Him off beyond what his grace-filled heart can bare. One might argue that the reason for sightings all over the world is so that Mary (and therefore her son) are more like us, and therefore easier to mimic. The big pull of Our Lady of Guadalupe, was the fact that she looked like a native, and not white (both of which are problematic).

It comes down to this, the gospel is so far from what we can comprehend, therefore, we continue to make it more logical/difficult. But as my Rabbi says, "It's unbelievable but it's true."

Yeshua Inc.

Let's try this again. My last attempt just got blitzed, and obviously the first draft will have been superior. I don't know why; to quote the Church Lady: "Could it be, hmmmm, SATAN?"

Anyways, about the veneration/worship stuff, let's look at it this way.

Imagine you work on the ground floor in an office building at an entry-level kind of position. You want a day off. You don't absolutely need it, you haven't necessarily earned it, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Besides, your boss is a nice guy, so it won't hurt to ask. So, you send in your request. Here's the thing, though: there have been times that you've slacked off, and you know your boss knows. He hasn't yelled at you, he hasn't suspended you, nor has he fired you; like I said, he's a nice guy. Still, you've noticed that disappointed look in his eye, so you're not sure your request will be granted. As benevolent as your boss is, you know that at the end of the day, he is evaluating your work.

What do you do? Well, lucky for you, you know someone who is working higher up in the company. The boss trusts him/her, and even luckier for you, that someone has shown to treat you well. So you approach this person, and ask him or her to put in a good word for you. Of course, you're going to be nice; heck, you may even buy him or her a coke. No worries...s/he says s/he will help you out but reminds you that this is no guarantee. "That's ok," you say "I have a better shot with you backing me up. Please vouch for me." So off this person goes to intercede for you to the boss.

Now, let's say you have the fortune of meeting the boss' mom. She's a great lady; she'll bake cookies for all the employees just for the heck of it. She'll come around to see how you're doing, and if you have any problems or just need to talk, she'll listen. Like I said, great lady. So, you approach her and ask the same thing--if she can vouch for you. She does so gladly, but also warns that this is no guarantee. "That's ok," you say "with you vouching for me, I have an even better shot."

Even with the backing of both these people, none of this will help if you don't put in the official request to the boss. Still, you feel more confident in submitting this request because you have these people supporting you. Besides, it's easier to approach this someone and the boss' mom because, hey, they're not evaluating you. They can't do that to you; they wouldn't want to even if they could. The boss, on the other hand, does evaluate you. He may be a nice guy, but if you slack off too much, he can "suspend you without pay" or even fire you. At the same time, he is the only one that can grant your request.

That's basically the concept of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia; that's the difference between worship and veneration. You obey your boss; you work for him and give him you're best effort. You work with that higher-level co-worker, and at the most, you give him a coke; neither of you are crazy enough to think that you work for him/her.

Does one's spiritual life necessitate latria? Yes, in fact you don't have a spiritual life without it. Does it absolutely need dulia or hyperdulia? No, but it can come in handy. Can you get buy with only dulia and hyperdulia? No way, and that's a risky thing.

As an aside, about that whole Last Judgement thing, two things are always in a Catholic's mind: the Nicene Creed, and that parable of the talents.

Pax.
Iggy

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

Well, I asked for it. I was hoping for something simple like, "Yeah we worship Mary! Gotta problem with that?"
As you alluded to in your post, there are so many small paths off this topic (or more likely leading us to it), which make it difficult for any Prod or Catholic to come to any solid agreement.

First, Protestants are not familiar with veneration as part of their religious practice, and I am sure that when a Catholic explains the difference between veneration and worship to a Protestant, a glazed look emerges over the Prod's eyes, as he/she is completely unfamiliar with the concept, and probably says to him/herself, "Sounds just like worship to me." So, as much as Catholics may try to explain dulia or hyperdulia they are (to the Protestant) categories that look a lot like worship(prayer, religious ceremony, statues, etc.) even if they are not defined as being such.
Second, adding the idea of saints to the mix confuses Protestants all the more. Since (believing in sola scriptura [that's right, I said it]) "we" define saints in a different manner than the Catholic Church. We would define it as defined by St. Paul (St. added for your sake, I just call him Paul) Throughout Paul's letters, we see reference after reference to the saints, however, the saints he mentions, fall into a very different category than that of a Catholic saint. They are not necessarily canonized, they are just followers of Jesus, they have not necessarily seen visions or performed miracles(a must for Catholic saints), they have simply associated themselves with Christ. Do not get me wrong, I believe that we should be "fans" (to quote a certain lamenting Sabers fan) of those who have lived before us and paved the way for 2 millennia, however, praying to them, is (I believe) misplaced, and I fear the "saints" would be upset by the practise. I would guess that they along with St. John the Baptist, would say, "He must increase, I must decrease."(John 3:30) All that is not Jesus is just getting in the way. Complete reliance on Christ is the point, isn't it.
In Romans 1:7, 8:27, and 15:25-26, Paul seems to see saints as those who are believers and followers of Jesus and who congregate together to serve and worship him. Furthermore, he does not make a division between these kinds of saints and those who will judge the world (see I Corinthians 6:2).

Finally, the idea of Jesus as judge seems a little misplaced to Protestants, not because Prods think of Jesus as their "buddy", but because a "courtroom" description in scripture, which tries to explain our present "legal" position with God, has its strongest argument in the letter to the Romans, where St. Paul places God as the judge and Jesus as he who stands in our defence, arguing on our behalf (see Romans 8:31-34). There is little need for anyone else to be added to the mix. The problem was between God and man, Jesus took care of the issue; that's it.

On a separate path, can you tell me when the idea of venerating Mary first came into existence?

The Adventures of Cath and Prod

June 3, 2006
Marian Devotion--Cath. response

Apologies go to those of you who were waiting for the Catholic response to this question. I know many (well, at least one) waited with held breath for this.

Anyways, this is a layered topic, and I run the risk of over-verbiage, but I'll try my best.

First of all, Catholics recognize 3 forms of devotion. The first is known as latria, which is basically true worship and is reserved for God alone. I don't want to get onto the idea of transubstantiation right now, but that is why you see Catholics genuflect to the Tabernacle but not to the statues of Mary and the saints.

The second is known as dulia, which is known as veneration to the saints. It isn't worship; instead it's a kind of respect Catholics have for those who "made it". Look at any sports fan (including me, who is still mourning the ill-fortune of my Buffalo Sabres). Things like autographed jerseys are treasured by the fan beause the fan looks up to the athlete. It's the same in the spiritual sense. The saint made it, he or she is up there, and dulia is a way of saying "Cool, you're in. If the Big Guy is around, put in a good word for me, will you?"

Mary has a special case; devotion to her is known as hyperdulia. It's basically dulia on steroids. It also isn't worship, but the actions by some Catholics may make it seem so. Mary gets hyperdulia by virtue of the Immaculate Conception (which is another topic that needs its own blog) and because of her act of free will noted in the Gospel of Luke accepting Archangel Gabriel's message (known as Mary's "fiat mihi" by some Catholics). The idea is that Mary's "be it done unto me according to your word" was an important part of the Incarnation. In a way, it's been taught as a model for us: Mary said yes to God, and with that the Messiah came; Eve said no to God, and with that sin entered into the world.

Now, why do Catholics have a lot of dulia and hyperdulia going around when, to paraphrase Visa, latria is all you really need. I'm not going to pretend to claim papal infallibility with this (which is probably a topic for yet another blog...I know, I should stop doing this...), but I gathered these thoughts recalling discussions I had with Catholics back in highschool, in my own parish, and the ones I see everywhere else.

One factor is that Protestants see Jesus a lot more personally than Catholics do. There is a lot of Jesus as "brother" and "personal saviour"; it's not that Catholics didn't traditionally believe this, but it wasn't as emphasized. What has traditionally been emphasized is Christ's divinity (again, remember the genuflections in Catholic churches). It's always been seen as inapproachable ipso facto, but due to the Incarnation, God is now reachable by humans ("...and the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us..."). Jesus, by becoming a man, has made the divine linked to humanity.
Another factor is that Catholics have multiple views on Jesus. We see him as the innocent child in the Infancy Narratives. He is loving Saviour who endured the all the torments of the Passion. He is the wise teacher with the parables and the Sermon on the Mount. He's the guy that did all those miracles (divinity again, you see). He's all that and more, and Protestants share these views with Catholics. The thing is that Catholics have one more view on Christ that Protestants don't emphasize as much. It's Christ as the Judge. It's in our creeds, it's in our art (Giotto and Michaelangelo), and it's in our catechism. So with all the benevolence that is associated with Christ that Catholics always have in mind, there is always that idea that we have to account for what we do in life to the Last Judgement. Take into consideration our doctrine of justification of faith and good works along with our "spiritual guilt complex" and our sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation, and you can understand that we look at Christ more as a parent than a brother; we love Jesus, but a part of us has this fear of messing up and getting in trouble.

Now what does all this have to do with hyperdulia? With Jesus, there is that element of judgement in the Gospels ("Depart from me ye cursed", the fig tree that bore no fruit, "Get behind me Satan/Peter, etc.). With Mary, there is none of that. What do we see? She says yes to the Incarnation (which made the divine approachable to begin with), she visits Elizabeth while pregnant, she does her thing at Cana ("Do whatever he tells you"). There is no "just anger", and there is no judgement. As much as Jesus connects the divinity with redeemed humanity, there is an even closer connection to Mary. Yes, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but he's still God. Mary is still 100% human, just like us, but she's special because of the Immaculate Conception and her fiat mihi. "Local girl makes it". She won't judge us, she won't condemn us, but she Jesus' mother. Who better to intercede for us to Jesus (especially when we think he's a touch peeved at our sins: "I was hung up on the cross for the sake of you all, and you are still trying to ruin your co-worker's reputation??")?
So when Jesus puts Mary in the custody of John in the Gospel of John, Catholics look at it as the other way around. "Woman, behold your son." It's not so much that John took care of her while she lived out her life on earth than she'll watch out for us now.

So there it is. Catholics will receive communion, they'll go to confession, and they'll say their paternosters, but they'll also give props to Mary with their rosaries, Angelus, and the rest of it. You know, just in case...

Pax.
Iggy

Come on, man!

I don't know if we can be friends anymore!!

Hello Cath respond, please!

Um are you there buddy? The Sabers seem to be taking up all your net time. I know you have a good response to the post below you just haven't found the time between watching your precious team, checking their site, and winning a bunch of floor hockey games against children. However, how is this Prod going to learn to correct the errors in his faith if you never take the time to respond?