The Fathers Speak

The Fathers Speak – Confession

          In the past, I have occasionally run a feature called “The Fathers Speak.”  This has included quotes taken in context from the Fathers of the Church that demonstrate Catholic doctrine.  I have compiled these and many more such quotes from the first 500 years of Christianity.  The Fathers of the Church are powerful witnesses to Christianity’s Catholicism right from the start.  I hope it will be a powerful apologetic and ecumenical tool.  The document is available for a donation of any size to Aquinas Academy.  It can be accessed by clicking here, or on the image of St. Athanasius near the top of this blog.

Local synod (council) in Antioch – A.D. 341

All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness

St. Athanasius – Letter dating A.D. 338

Therefore let us, performing our vows to the Lord, and confessing our sins, keep the feast to the Lord, in conversation, moral conduct, and manner of life…

St. Augustine – Letter 185 – A.D. 415

But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England – A.D. 731

Note: Cuthbert died in the previous century

And such was Cuthbert’s skill in speaking, so keen his desire to persuade men of what he taught, such a light shone in his angelic face, that no man present dared to conceal from him the secrets of his heart, but all openly revealed in confession what they had done, thinking doubtless that their guilt could in nowise be hidden from him; and having confessed their sins, they wiped them out by fruits worthy of repentance, as he bade them...

Cyprian of Carthage – A.D. 200-270 – Epistle 2

You see, then, brethren, that you also ought to do the like, so that even those who have fallen may amend their minds by your exhortation; and if they should be seized once more, may confess, and may so make amends for their previous sin…

Cyril of Jerusalem – A.D. 315-386 - Catechetical Lecture 1

Put off, by confession, the old man, which waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit, that ye may put on the new man, which is renewed according to knowledge of Him that created him...

The present is the season of confession: confess what thou hast done in word or in deed, by night or by day; confess in an acceptable time, and in the day of salvation receive the heavenly treasure...

The Didache – circa A.D. 80

…gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that you may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned.

St. Jerome – Letter 41 against the Montanists – A.D. 385

Their strictness does not prevent them from themselves committing grave sins, far from it; but there is this difference between us and them, that, whereas they in their self-righteousness blush to confess their faults, we do penance for ours, and so more readily gain pardon for them...

Pope St. Gregory the Great – A.D. 540-604 – Pastoral Rule, Book II (Of the Life of the Pastor)

Yet, when they prepare the patience of their condescension for cleansing the sins of their neighbors in confession, they support, as it were, the laver before the doors of the temple; that whosoever is striving to enter the gate of eternity may shew his temptations to his pastor's heart, and, as it were, wash the hands of his thought and of his deed…

He is Risen!

He is Risen!

Image from http://stainedglassinc.com/

Happy Easter!  Jesus is risen, Alleluia, Alleluia!  As Christians, we recognize that the Resurrection is the culmination of the Paschal Mystery, the central event of human history.  It is Jesus’s victory over death, the firstfruits of the resurrection of ourselves to everlasting life.  It is also the ultimate sign testifying to Jesus Christ.  The Resurrection proves undeniably that Jesus is who He says He is.

One of the disappointing (but not unexpected) things I saw this Easter was the prominence on Holy Saturday of television programming themed: “Who Really Was Jesus?” and, “The Lost Gospel of Judas.”  These sacred days are never lost opportunities for our pagan culture to revel in blasphemy.  Of course, one reality that our culture has no real answer for is the Resurrection.  As we witness to our atheist or pagan family, friends, neighbors and coworkers this Easter season, the Resurrection is a challenge we can pose to them that demands an answer because, as I said above, if the Resurrection is true, then Jesus is who He says He is.  In this article, I intend to show that the Resurrection is more than simply an article of faith; it is a historically verifiable fact.

To deny the Resurrection, one has to account for four historical realities: 1) Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and buried; 2) His tomb was empty within days of His burial; 3) Numerous people testified to seeing Him alive again; 4) The Church, which was built on the hope of the Resurrection, became the most powerful and enduring institution on the planet.

How do we know these four things are true?  The fourth is rather self-evident, but the first three are historically verifiable as well.  First, one needs not look at the Gospels as the Word of God to recognize that they are, historically, among the most reliable documents we have from the ancient world.  There have been wonderful books and articles written about this (Lee Stroebel, among others, has done a great service in this regard).  The Gospels were written essentially by eye-witnesses of the events they report, for eyewitnesses of the events.  They were written in close proximity in time and location to the events they report, and they not only corroborate each other, but are corroborated by other ancient records.  If the subject matter was not religious, any historian would take them as the most trustworthy historical documents we possess from the ancient world.

Also, the four facts I mentioned above are reported not only by the Gospels, but by ancient Jewish sources (Josephus probably being the most famous), as well as Roman records.  They are undeniable, which leaves the skeptic with the daunting task of explaining them with something other than the Resurrection of Christ.

1)  The Death of Jesus:  No serious historian disputes this.  We have as much evidence and detail about this event as basically anything that occurred in the ancient world.  There are only two theories I know of that have ever been advanced to try and question it and both are ridiculous.  The “Swoon theory” suggests that Jesus didn’t really die on the Cross; He only appeared dead, and the foolish Romans took him down and allowed Him to be buried while He was still alive.  Then, after some rest in the tomb, He revived.  The notion that the Romans, experts on torture and death, wouldn’t know that a crucified man had died is silly.  It also ignores the fact of the lance to the Heart.  Not to mention, a scourged and crucified man would not have been able to move the stone from the tomb and in that condition would never have inspired his disciples to become heroes and martyrs like the Apostles were.

The other suggestion, advanced by Muslims, is that it was actually Judas who was crucified, and God miraculously prevented people from recognizing him.  This doesn’t answer the fact that Judas was found dangling from a tree by his neck.  It also would not be a claim made by atheists, and in dialogue with Muslims, we likely wouldn’t begin with the Resurrection, but rather more fundamental issues – the nature of God, the persons of Christ and Mohammed, etc.

2)  The Empty Tomb:  If the Resurrection never occurred, it would be the easiest thing in the world to disprove – just produce the Body of Jesus.   Case closed.  Yet, it has never happened.  Why not?  Because the tomb was empty.  The empty tomb was preached almost immediately, in Jerusalem, the location of the tomb.  Again, it would be very simple to disprove.  If the tomb were not empty, no one could have preached it right down the street from it.  Anyone could check.  I imagine that couldn’t have slipped the minds of both the Jewish and Roman leaders.

The other claim is that the Body could have been stolen.  No it couldn’t have.  There was a guard set at the tomb.  How were Peter and the others going to overpower the armed guards, removed the stone, stolen the Body, and gotten away unscathed?  Impossible.  Plus, this theory ignores the witness of the Apostles.  With the exception of John, the Apostles all died as martyrs.  I’m not sure how many of you played April Fools jokes this week, but I doubt any of you would die to testify to their veracity.  James was beheaded, Peter and Andrew were crucified, Bartholomew was skinned alive!  All they would have had to do to save themselves was deny the Resurrection, yet none of them did.  They went singing to their deaths, confident of a reward in Heaven.  No possible way each of them would suffer horrific deaths for the sake of what they knew to be a fraud.

3)  Numerous accounts of witnesses seeing Jesus alive:  Not only do we have the testimony of the Gospels to this, but Josephus, as well as Roman sources, report that people reported seeing Jesus alive after His death.  These claims were made immediately, by many people.  The notion of a mass hallucination doesn’t work because of the many different people who independently reported seeing Christ.  None of these people saw Him in a dream, or while they were in a trance.  Also, none of these people really expected the Resurrection.  And again, it begs the question of the empty tomb.  St. Peter did exactly what we would expect the disciples to do when confronted with stories of the Risen Christ – he checked the tomb.  Both friends and enemies would have done so when reports of people seeing Christ arose (remember, these first claims also started in Jerusalem).  And, of course, the tomb was empty.

4) The Rise of the Church:  The Resurrection was the event that turned a dejected band of seemingly defeated men into the most powerful group on earth.  These blue-collar nobodies – 11 to start – fulfilled the commission to baptize all nations.  They built a Church that outlived the great Roman Empire, tamed the barbarian Europe that was born of the Empire’s fall, evangelized the New World, and has survived attacks from without and wickedness from within for two millennia.  Not particularly likely if the Resurrection was a hoax or a fantasy, and if the Holy Spirit were not with them.

5)  The Shroud of Turin:  One last thing worth mentioning is the Shroud of Turin.  We are not bound by faith to accept the validity of the Shroud.  But just last week, scientific tests confirmed that the Shroud dates to the time of Christ.  There are so many wonderful books that give scientific and historical details testifying to the Shroud.  The image on the Shroud not only testifies to the death of Christ, but also to His Resurrection.

As Christians, Easter is a glorious time of hope, joy, and victory.  But the Resurrection is also a powerful sign to an unbelieving world.  Having even a rudimentary grasp of the basic facts proving the Resurrection (which is all I can claim for myself) can be a wonderful tool, if not to convince others to believe, at least to get them to think.  Open a door, plant a seed, and God will work wonders.

*Please note: The term ‘pagan’ is not meant to be pejorative or an insult to any particular people.  It is only meant to express a certain spiritual reality.

Christian Unity

Christian Unity

I recently attended an education in-service about Socratic Seminars.  The instructor impressed on us that the goal was to promote dialog, not debate.  All positions were equally valid, there were to be no judgments made, and there were no right answers to the questions being asked.

Now, this was about analyzing literature, identifying figurative language, tone, etc.  Depending on the piece, the technique could be rather benign, but it certainly could promote poor habits of mind, and immerse students in a culture of relativism.

It reminded me, in fact, of a statement I once heard a young man make: “I don’t really like apologetics; I prefer ecumenism.”

I bring that up because this is the week of prayer for Christian unity.  That is certainly a time for ecumenism, but what the young man I spoke to didn’t understand is that apologetics and ecumenism go hand-in-hand.

Ecumenism refers to dialog between members of different Christian communities: Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox.  The key to understanding ecumenism is understanding the goal: unity.  This means reunion – one Church giving one witness.

Praying together, standing up together in the culture wars, and supporting each other are all important things.  They all help build a sense of brotherhood.  But in the end, our goal is, as Jesus Himself prayed, “That they all may be one.”

To achieve this goal, many things are necessary.  We need patience, a historical understanding, forgiving hearts, and we need apologetics.

The only way for the many Christian communities to really reunite is for all of us to recognize that there is an objective religious Truth.  Some believe baptism is regenerative, others believe it is merely symbolic.  Well, it is either one or the other.  Someone is objectively wrong.  Some believe authority can only be found in the Bible, others believe Jesus has given authority to the Church as well.  He either did or He didn’t.  Someone is wrong.

There are many issues like that.  We should get along, we should support each other, we should work together, but we should also admit that on many issues of objective truth, we disagree.

This is why dialog is so important.  We need to discuss these things.  And this is why debate (and apologetics) is so important.  If we can all come to understand what we all believe, and why, we can arrive at the truth.  Then there must be humility enough to act on that truth.

As Catholics, we are very confident that the Church has the fullness of the Truth.  And she does.  But our Protestant brethren are quite sure that she does not.  We must, as a Church, be willing and able to explain and defend the Faith, if we are going to inspire many of our separated brethren to come home.

And we need our own humility.  We may be on solid theological ground, but there are many things we need to be able to see through others’ eyes.  There are many historical events, for example, about which we must acknowledge our wrongdoings.  A perfect example is the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.  It is true that the Church did not order or approve the attack, and that in fact the pope strongly disciplined the guilty.  But that does not change the fact that Catholic knights sacked the Orthodox capital, and the impregnable Constantinople soon fell as a result.

We need apologetics if we are ever to have unity, and we need humility.  And most of all, we need prayer.  So let us remember, during this week of prayer for Christian unity, to join sincere hearts across Christianity and beg our Lord to grant us the graces to fulfill his prayer for unity.

Link - The Immaculate Conception

Link – The Immaculate Conception

Due to the Second Sunday of Advent falling on December 8 this year, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is being celebrated today, December 9.  At the following link, Tim Staples gives some profitable reflections on the dogma and, as is his style, plenty of apologetics.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

Book Review - 'Answering Atheism'

Book Review – Answering Atheism

 

Trent Horn has been studying the phenomenon of atheism for years.  In his new book, Answering Atheism, published by Catholic Answers Press, he makes a clear and charitable response.

The book is broken into three parts.  The first clarifies the terms and positions in the debate.  He also analyzes its tone in recent years, and promises that his work will not sink to the level of insults and name-calling.  In reading the rest of the book, one finds that he keeps his word.

The second part of the book analyzes and critiques the arguments for atheism.  Often we find that in talking to atheists, they will debate our positions for theism and see atheism as a default position.  It is as if atheism is the starting point and as long as there is any conceivable answer to our points (reasonable or not), then atheism must be assumed.

But of course this position is unreasonable.  An atheist should be able to give clear reasons for being an atheist.  Horn looks at the most common reasons in this section of the book, most notably the ideas that the concept of God is a logical contradiction, and that the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of suffering and evil.  Horn very thoroughly and fairly presents the atheist arguments, and very charitably and completely shows them to be false.

The third and longest part of the book includes the reasons to believe in God (theism).  Horn is not specifically an apologist for Christianity in this work, although there are a few points at which he shows that the Christian conception of God makes the most sense out of reality.

Horn delves into the recent advances in physics that prove the universe (space-time) had a beginning, before which there was nothing.  And, of course, something can not come from nothing.  He looks at the improbable fine-tuning of our universe that makes it capable of supporting life.  Finally, he puts forth the moral arguments for the existence of God and takes a look at personal experience.

In the spirit of Thomas Aquinas, Horn gives voice to every possible objection to his arguments.  Much of the book, in fact, is spent answering these challenges.  The result is that when the reader is finished, it is very likely he will have any points of disagreement left untreated.

My criticisms of this book are few.  The first was touched on earlier this week in my article about evolutionism.  The only other thing to watch out for is that because Horn goes through so many difficulties people might have with his arguments, at times the main point can get lost in the technicalities.

This technique, I’m sure, is very helpful to the skeptical reader and he does well by leaving some of the more far-fetched objections to the appendices, allowing the main text to flow more smoothly.

Overall, Answering Atheism is a worthy book to add to one’s library.  It is intellectual but not difficult to read.  It can also serve as a powerful reference tool when challenged by an atheistic argument whose answer is not readily on the tip of the tongue. 

What is Papal Infallibility?

What is Papal Infallibility?

Note: I have tried to faithfully present Catholic teaching on this issue.  If something sounds suspect, please look it up in an authoritative Catholic source, and please let me know of my mistake if I have made one.

          One of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Church, among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is that of papal infallibility.  Some people mistake infallibility for impeccability, meaning that they think Catholics believe the pope is perfect, without sin (we do not).  Some people think Catholics look to the pope to make every decision for them and that we believe that everything he says comes directly from God, with the weight of Scripture (we do not).  Archbishop Fulton Sheen told the story of a person who claimed that Catholics believe the pope is inflammable (which I suppose we do, but it has nothing to do with this doctrine).

          So it seems rather important, if we are going to clear up misunderstandings among non-Catholics, and if we are going to understand our Faith ourselves, that we be clear on what the Church does and does not teach regarding papal infallibility.

          First, we have to recognize the importance of governance and authority in the Church.  With all the wonderful things our Protestant brethren have, one thing they lack is unity of doctrine.  There are thousands of Protestant denominations precisely because there is no authority that can define doctrine; there is only the Scripture, which experience shows us can lend itself to various interpretations, without a teaching Church.

          There is also, among Protestants, no visible principle of unity on the Earth, making impossible Jesus’s prayer at the Last Supper “that they all be one” (Jn. 17:11).  There’s a wealth of Scripture that demonstrates the establishment of a hierarchical, authoritative Church, united with Peter, but the point of this article is not a defense of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but rather its explanation.

          The first thing to be understood is that papal infallibility is a negative charism, not a positive one.  What that means is that it prevents the pope from teaching error (in certain circumstances – more on that later); it does not ensure that he will always teach things completely or in the most effective possible way.  This is a crucial distinction.  We see over the centuries a deepening understanding of the Mysteries of Christ, but nowhere can we find a direct contradiction in the 2,000-year teaching of the Church.

          There are usually three popes (of the 266) that opponents like to cite to disprove papal infallibility, but none of them do so when the charism is properly understood.  The most common is the case of Pope Honorius, who failed to effectively condemn the Monothelitist heresy in the seventh century.

          Remember, though, that papal infallibility is like a fence that keeps the pope from venturing into error, it is not a springboard that propels him to heights of wisdom.  It does not guarantee that the pope will do something that it seems he ought to do; it guarantees that he will not do something, namely promulgate error.

          The next thing to understand is when the charism is effective.  The pope is only infallible when he teaches the whole Church, ex cathedra, on matters of faith and morals.  Therefore, he is never infallible when discussing business, sports, or politics (unless they directly pertain to faith and morals).  He is never infallible in personal correspondence or personal reflections.  (This is probably why Pope John Paul II wanted his personal notes and journals destroyed upon his death.  He knew they could potentially contain error, yet many Catholics would probably not understand that.  Pope Honorius’s questionable statements were in private letters, also not protected by infallibility.)  The pope must be officially teaching the whole Church regarding faith or morals. 

          Why is this so important?  Do we not need to know what is true, what to believe?  Jesus gave Peter and his successors the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and this special charism, so we would have a sure answer to the disputes that would arise over the centuries over the meaning of Scripture and Tradition.

          With the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis, there have been other (silly) questions: Are two men infallible at the same time?  Who will Catholics trust?

          Papal infallibility is a charism tied to the office of the papacy, not to a man.  Therefore, it has nothing to do with Pope Emeritus Benedict anymore.

          One other area must be spoken about: disciplinary matters about which the pope is not infallible.  The pope does govern the Church (Christ, of course, is the Head; the pope is His vicar on Earth).  Jesus told Peter, “What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven” (Mt. 16:18). 

          There are disciplinary laws which we are bound in obedience to follow, though they not be matters of faith and morals, have nothing to do with infallibility, and may potentially be changed.

          An example is the celibate clergy in the Roman rite.  This is a discipline of the Church.  It is not a dogma, and certainly is not an issue that has anything to do with infallibility.  As a disciplinary matter, it could potentially be changed.  However, because it is currently in force, the clergy have made a promise to obey it.  Therefore, it would be sinful for them to disobey without permission.

          It is very much like a parent with a child.  If a child willfully refuses to make his bed, for example, after being instructed to do so by a parent, he sins; not because an unmade bed is objectively evil, not because making one’s bed is a universal or infallible law, but because he has willfully disobeyed a legitimate authority.

          Catholics occasionally try to see if a pronouncement is infallible as a way of finding a loophole.  Regardless of infallibility, there is no loophole.  Obedience is one of the highest virtues.  This means obedience to Christ, and by extension, to His Church.

          It should be noted that I am speaking here of the disciplines and laws of the Church.  If an individual priest, or even the pope, told an individual to do something that was objectively sinful, there would be no obligation to obey – in fact, there would be an obligation to disobey.