Contest for gift certificates:
1. $50 - 600 Restaurant at the Watergate (600 New Hampshire Ave, NW). Your name will be entered into the contest for each answer (and example) you give to the questions below. Winning name to be drawn after the 5:30 Mass, 2/13.
2. $50 - Luigino Ristorante (1100 New York Ave.). Your name will be entered into the contest for each answer (and example) you give to the questions below. Winning name to be drawn after the 7:30 Mass, 2/13.
----------------------------------------------
Well, the fun of Lent begins tomorrow (D'oh)! Amid all of your fasting, here's something to feast on for the next 40 days (and beyond): a reflection on Truth. Enjoy!
Truth is fascinating to me. I never thought about Truth growing up, but have fallen in love with It over the past 13 years. It is a concept that is not only downplayed in our society, it is actually attacked.
Pontius Pilate asked Jesus: "What is truth?" (Jn 18:38). Truth is what exists, what is real. Here's an example of a truth in math that is unquestionable: 2+2=4. Duh, obvious, you say.
But, what if someone came along and said that "2+2=3 or 5, or whatever you want it to be"? And, what if they really believed it, and even dedicated their lives to arguing against 2+2=4? Would their beliefs and arguments change the truth that 2+2=4?
If that's a foolish example, then let's use some examples of other truths. God exists; God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ is true God and true man; the fullness of Jesus Christ is found in the Catholic Church; all of the Church's teachings on faith and morals are true and necessary for salvation; sex is reserved for marriage; every human life is sacred and begins at conception. Just like 2+2=4, these are all examples of objective truth.
Yet, there are many people who really believe and argue that God doesn't exist; God is whomever you want Him (or Her) to be; Jesus was a good man but not God; it doesn't matter what church you belong to; the Church is outdated and narrow-minded; if it feels good, do it; babies in the womb are not persons. Just like 2+2=3 or 2+2=5, these are examples of the worldly view called "subjective truth". They are not real, and don't change objective truth.
The world is opposed to Christ and all of His followers (see Jn 17:14). The world hates Christ, who is Truth (see Jn 14:6), and all those who follow Truth: "If the world hates you, you must realize that it hated me before it hated you" (Jn 15:18). The world crucified Christ, killed all of the Apostles (except John), and has either physically or personally persectued many Christians for 2000 years; all because they spoke and lived the Truth.
Truth is from God (see 2 Sam 7:28); lies are from the Evil One (see Mt 5:37, 1 Jn 4:1-6). Truth makes us free (see Jn 8:32); lies make us slaves to sin (see Romans 6:16-17). "I was born for this, I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth hear my voice." (Jn 18:38).
Whose side are you on?
*To learn more about Truth, click on the link below.
----------------------------------------------
Questions:
1. Why is it necessary to believe in the Catholic Church's teachings on faith and morals?
2. Give an example of an objective truth.
3. Give an example of a subjective truth.
6 comments:
Adam, wow, did you write a lot of great stuff, and really helped me develop the different forms of truth. Thanks, buddy. I will try to answer some of your points soon. My aim was to start out with a general look at objective truth as it exists. Then, get specific with how revealed Truth has its fullness in the Church. That's what I will attempt to do here. It's a hot topic, especially around GW right now. But, great examples, and thanks for all of your amazing insights and efforts. I think we can enter you in the contests!!
Ted, right on the money, buddy! I left open the example of the Real Presence, and you filled it perfectly. That was really the whole point of that Sunday night: that folks would see and believe that, objectively, really, it's Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist! Awesome, baby!!
Ok, now, I have a lot of work to do to try and answer my own question, "why is it necessary to believe in the Catholic Church's teachings on faith and morals?" Really, the question is no different than "why is it necessary to believe in Christ's teachings on faith and morals?" Adam is right, we have free will and can choose to reject Christ and His Church. But, if we want life on this earth and in Heaven, believing in the teachings of His Church are necessary. (My focus here is strictly on the teaching authority of the Church, and how Truth is linked to Salvation.)
Christ formed His Church when He sent the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff). The Spirit came upon them as "a violent wind" and "tongues as of fire". Thousands of Jews from all different nations were there; the Apostles "began to speak in different languages" and these Jews could all understand them. Peter strongly preached to them about the Risen Christ and exhorted them to be baptized. "That very day about three thousand were added to their number" (Acts 2:41).
Thus, Christ founded the Catholic Church through the power of His Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This is the Spirit of truth that Christ promised in John 16:13; His prayer in Jn 17:17 is that the Apostles would be consecrated in the truth.
We see next in Acts that the early Christian community "remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles" (2:42). Remember, too, that Christ had given teaching authority to Peter (Mt 16:19) and the apostles (Mt 18:18).
Whatever they declare "loosed" (allowed) on earth is allowed in Heaven; whatever they declare "bound" (forbidden) on earth is forbidden in Heaven. This is the foundation for the infallibility (without error) of the Church's Magisterium (Pope and college of bishops)on teachings of faith and morals.
In other words, when Peter (and his successors) and the Apostles (and their successors) teach on faith and morals, they are one with Heaven (Christ) and can't be wrong. Christ himself had told them, "whoever listens to you listen to me" (Lk 10:16). They are guided by His Spirit: "it is not you who will be speaking; it is the Holy Spirit" (Mk 13:12).
Ok, so the Apostles were filled with God's Spirit of truth and taught the truth to others. How do we make the link, then, between the Apostles (and the early Christian Church) with the Catholic Church of today? Tradition.
"For the tradition I received from the Lord and handed on to you" (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3-7). The Apostles handed on Christ's teachings to the next generation. who handed them on, and so on. In fact, St Paul commands the Thessalonians to "keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).
The Apostles passed on an oral AND written tradition that has been passed down for 2,000 years. Keep in mind: the tradition of the Church began before there was the "New Testament"! The Church, "the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), is based in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
St Paul introduced the term "the Body of Christ" referring to the Church and used it many times (e.g., Col 1:18,24; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 5:23) He writes to the Ephesians that the Church is the fullness of Christ(1:23; 4:13). Christ is "the head of the Church, which is his Body, the fullness of him" (1:23).
Christ and the Church are one, as a husband and wife are one (Eph 5:22-33). Christ is the vine; the members of the Church are His branches (Jn 15:5). Christ prayed to the Father that all the members of his Church would be one AS the Father and Son are one (Jn 17:21). In other words, the unity of the Church is to reflect the unity of the Holy Trinity. Are we one?
Finally, salvation comes through Christ (Jn 3:36; 6:40) and through the Church (Mk 16:16; Mt 28:40). Christ sends out his Apostles to do what He did, teach what he taught, and that "I am with you always; yes, to the end of time" (Mt 28:20).
As a final point and in addition to the Church's teachings being necessary for salvation, they are also necessary for a true life in Christ on earth. We cannot do good in our lives apart from truth (Jn 15:5). The truth of Jesus Christ brings us the fullness of joy on earth (Jn 15:11; 1 Jn 1:4). And, we experience the fullness of God's Love by being obedient to His truth: "if you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love" (Jn 15:10).
Adam,
First of all, buddy, I do appreciate your comments and the fact that you participate in this forum. But, I think you miss the big picture here. I am trying to lay out a base course of what the Church teaches and how she thinks. It's basically Philosophy 101 and Theology 101. If you or others are on a more advanced level in these areas, your comments might do more harm than good because people who are hearing this stuff for the first time won't understand the context of your comments.
It's like a new football coach who lays out his strategy to the team, and immediately his veteran quarterback begins to question it. There might be some legitimacy to it, and it's always good to have legitimate debate, but that quarterback will have sown the seeds of dissent in the minds of the other players. I don't think that's your intent, but please just keep that in mind.
Now, to the specifics. To make the distinction between subjective truth and unproven statements is splitting hairs, at least on the level on which I introduced this discussion of truth. I set up the general contrast between objective and subjective truth to show that a) objective truth exists, and b) subjective truth by iself doesn't exist.
Subjective truth is "whatever I think is true is true". Ultimately, it leads to "there is no truth". Common sense tells us that this approach is erroneous. Even the statement "there is no truth" attempts to state a truth.
Christians of different denominations approach the issue of the Eucharist in this fashion. Each believes that their position is true; but there is only one objectively true teaching. People deny the truth, and put forward their own truth. While I still believe that many Catholics simply don't know about the Real Presence and thus aren't really espousing a serious doctrine of "it's just a symbol", the fact is that that is their belief. That is truth to them (subjectively). But, and this is the whole point of my original post, their truth is not THE truth, and so they have no truth. Subjective truth without objective truth is no truth at all.
Adam, about your bigger questions about papal authority and apostolic succesion. Most of what you wrote is what guys in my class in the seminary would debate, or at least people on that theological level. Again, when I'm simply laying out the general tradition of the Church's teaching authority for people who may have never heard it before, it's not very helpful for you to undercut it with specifics to which people don't know the context.
While you agree that Truth comes from Christ through the Church, you don't seem to accept the Church's teaching of how it has happened. "Papal authority" and "apostolic succession" have, apparently, not won you over. Well, let me share with you the Church's view.
"The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #863).
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority'. Indeed, 'the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time" (#77).
"Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter" (#892).
"Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying (Jn 20:21-23): they became sacramental signs of Christ. By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This 'apostolic succession' structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders" (#1087).
The Apostles were the first priests of Jesus Christ. Christ made them His priests and gave them full authority to act in His person. He sets Peter apart from the rest as their leader. Christ gave the authority and powers (faculties) that He received from the Father to the Apostles.
They passed this power (baptize, forgive sins, celebrate the Eucharist, etc.)on through the "laying on of hands". Was Paul ever ordained in this way? No. But, were any of the Apostles? No. Like the Apostles, Paul received his call to be an apostle FROM CHRIST HIMSELF. Christ didn't ever lay hands on the apostles; He didn't have to. That would come later, as the Apostles began to ordain their successors.
Timothy and Titus are the earliest examples of apostolic succession. Paul charged them with setting up local apostolic communities. Others were asked to help the apostles in different ways. The "proto-priests" you mentioned were actually what we would call deacons today (Acts 6:1-6). There were no women priests and have never been.
The early set up of the Church is the 12 Apostles sending out many disciples (Lk 10), and then as the Apostles began to near the end of their lives, they ordained other men (we call them "bishops" today) to succeed them. The Apostles left presbyters ("priests" today) in charge of the different communities when they left, but the presbyters didn't have full authority, like the Apostles. Others helped out with the preaching and serving at tables ("deacons").
Were all of these ordained ministers of Jesus Christ perfect? No. But, they did carry the teaching authority of His Gospel and the sanctifying authority of His Sacraments. Any errors that Peter and the Apostles (and their successors) made were outside of doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. If you doubt that one, you doubt Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
The priesthood, then, is a linear tradition, that began "in the line of Melchisedek" (Ps 110). To suggest that the geneoligical approach is 'suspect' is to call the very geneology of Christ 'suspect'. I know there are Catholic historians out there who argue against apostolic succession; at least one seminarian in my class has said that the current Church structure is human, not divine.
To go along these lines mean to stray from the mind of the Church. If it's an historian or seminarian or whomever, you better be someone who has looked thoroughly at Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium before you make any conclusions. And, by the way, what conclusions do these historians make? What conclusions do you make? How did we arrive at the current structure of the Church?
Last point: "it is not truth because the Church says so, it is because IT IS the truth that the Church says so". It is the truth that Pope John Paul II is the successor of St Peter, that all of the current bishops are successors of the Apostles, that they carry the same teaching, sanctifying, and governing authority as the Apostles, and that all of this authority and power comes from Jesus Christ and through His Holy Spirit. Because this is the truth, the Church says so.
In case people are wondering what happened to Adam's comments, he explained that he deleted them because they might have been misunderstood. He wasn't doubting papal authority or apostolic succession, he was simply trying to make the point that those 2 things weren't accepted at the time.
It actually shows his respect for the teaching authority of the Church that he removed his comments; but I never asked him to delete them. All appropriate comments are welcome here; it is an open forum.
My comments made to Adam last night and today were not necessarily to debate him (because we agree fundamentally), but it was to say that we're just beginning with a lot of these issues, and I want to take it slowly.
Also, some of us will be discussing these very issues at St Stephen's this weekend, and I want to use my posts as points of reference. For people who are just being exposed to the beauty of Catholic teaching, maybe for the first time, either online or in discussions in the parish, keeping it as simple and clear as possible will work best.
As time goes on, and we delve deeper, Adam Solove's brilliant insights will be invaluable. He is smarter than I (and most of us) and has a great passion for Christ and His Church. We are not on his level yet, but we are on our way!
Alison,
I really enjoyed your post; and yes, I am looking for you to post on here. Absolutely! Tell your friends to do so as well; Catholic or non!
I've already used your James reference in a conversation since you posted, and it really helped! Good job! But, more than anything else, you give a great witness to all who visit this site. You honestly present the struggle that we have been addressing: following the Church's teachings in a time when it is laughable to some to do so. And, coming from a 'newbie', it's HUGE!
I'm guessing that you know Adam! Your comments about truth were good, and eerily similar to his. I have thought a good bit about subjective truth with regard to his and your comments. What you both have defined as subjective truth with subjects like favorite food and color, I would call 'opinion'. You would say, yes, we use our opinions to form subjective truths on such topics. But, I still wouldn't aver that purple is, in truth, the best color because I think it is. It's only my opinion.
I'm not looking for this to carry on and on...we might just leave it at that. We both agree, and this is the main point, that objective truth exists. If someone tries to deny that truth with their "own truth", well, then, they are in error. The sad thing is is that many people live their whole lives in error. And, with tragic, eternal consequences.
It's great to have you on this site and that you like it! Please keep "going deep" with us!
Post a Comment