I didn't want to lose this response I wrote, so I'll put it on my blog for safekeeping...
I was asked to give some clarification as to why God allows evil.. and so I used Peter Kreeft, as well as scripture to help.
Hey (friends name), sorry for the delay again... it's been busy as you can imagine.
But I haven't forgotten about your question. To understand the problem of evil in the world, suffering, death and injustice and why a good, all powerful God would allow it begs a couple of questions. First, if God made everything (the universe and everything in it), it stems to reason that God made evil too. But did God make evil? And secondly, what is God going to do with it? Why doesn't he just destroy evil right now. Why do we have to continue suffering if as scripture tells us God is love... "Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:8)."
To the first question... if God made everything in the universe, did he make evil? We see the beautiful things in creation everyday, from all the things around us to the people whom we love and so on... and we look at those beautiful things and we can reason that our God must be beauty itself and those things participate in His beauty. But then we also see evil things happening all the time too, and it is especially hard to understand when it happens to the most innocent in society, particularly children. Did God make that happen? Did God who is beauty, make evil too?
The answer is no... God made everything, and everything he made is good by it's very existence because He is goodness Himself, (even when a thing does not perform according to it's nature which it was designed to, like when an apple tree does not grow apples because of a disease, the apple tree is still good by the fact that it exist and God made it, but what is not good is that it does not do what it was designed to do). In this example, we can ask, did God make the apple tree with a default, or did he allow the default to exist?
Take another example, If I had a rock (which by itself is good, in that it exist) and I threw it at you and hit you with it, that would be evil right? Yes, but the rock itself is not evil, my action would be evil. God made the rock, God made my two hands, God made me with free will, but he did not make the evil action, I made that, in that example, I made the choice to hit you with the rock. I chose to not do what I was created to do, which is mainly to know and love God and neighbor.
The point is, God does not create evil.... evil is not a thing to be created, evil is a privation (a lack of) of something that is suppose to be there. So that when I performed that evil act of hitting you with a rock, I was created with the power to throw things, which is good, but I chose (because I also have free will) to not use that power in a good way. That's moral evil. There is also natural evil, which would be the apple tree example. An apple tree that does not produce fruit is a natural evil, not a moral evil, but nevertheless is an evil in that what that apple tree was created to do, it is not doing. God didn't create the apple tree to be barren, but because of a privation of goodness (in this case a disease), which is natural evil (not created by God), the apple tree is not producing fruit.
The point being, that evil is not created, it is a privation of good, not a thing, but a lack of a thing. That's important to understand because all evil really is, is a lack of something that is suppose to be there. Evil is not a created thing. God who is all good, cannot by his own nature, create something which is not good.
That leads to the second question... we know that evil (lack of good) things happen all the time in the world, what is an all Good, all Powerful God doing about it, and why does he allow it to continue?
Why did God allow Hitler and the Nazi's to kill 6 million Jews? That's an obvious example, so we'll go with that... could not have God intervened to stop it? Could not God have intervened to stop Hurricane Katrina, or 9/11, etc?
The answer to this question can be understood when we begin to realize that God is a perfect parent.
We believe that our God created us in his image and likeness, and we were created good with certain powers, namely the powers to be who we were created to be. Human beings, who are again in his image and likeness are the only creatures (that we know of) that were created with a complete and total rational intellect and free will. And why is that? Because God is love, and we image his love... and love by it's own nature is an act which must be chosen. God could have created us like robots and forced us to do what he designed us to do, but that would be denying the true nature of Love which would be to deny himself, because he is Love. God wants us to choose Love but he won't force us to.
So, back to the good parent analogy. You have children, soon, James will be in school and be given homework assignments. Now, as a good parent, you will help James but you won't just do his homework for him. Children don't always like homework and yet parents (if they are normal) know better than to just do all the work for the child. Why? Because if they did all the homework, the children would never learn anything, and that wouldn't be good for them. This example is elementary and obvious but it helps make a point.
Homework is a pain sometimes, and parents could take that pain away from their children but they don't. Are parents evil because they don't take the pain of having to do homework away? No, of course not, they are good, even though they let their children suffer the pains of homework.
The same is true with God, God allows us to suffer sometimes but that does not make Him evil. Okay, but sufferings in the world are a lot worse than the suffering of homework. True, and we can't necessarily understand why God allows sufferings to continue, but we do believe he allows it for the same reason he does everything, and that reason is that He loves us.
We don't have the answers for why he lets horrible things happen to good people, especially children, and if we did, we wouldn't have to believe in Him, we wouldn't have to Trust Him. He asks us to trust Him, even when we don't understand. There are many stories and passages in scripture which relay this Truth. Proverbs 3:5-- "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not".... Matthew 6:25-34; The story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis, Abraham had to rely totally on Trust when he was put to the test; and I could quote many more... the point is that God's ways are above our ways, and that is why we must always pray for Faith and that we will be given the Grace we need to overcome any temptations to despair... this takes a real humility... read 2 Corinthians 12 starting from verse 5 onward.
Now, evil is in the world as a privation, and we know it is, and we know God allows it, but that does not mean that we are to just a passive attitude towards it. We have to fight it! But we can't fight evil with evil.. We must fight it in ourselves, and in the world but with those tools that are used for good, not bad.
And God did not originate evil as we stated, but he is there fighting it with us, and even IN us, When we fight against injustice, and tyranny, and all the evils of the world, God is fighting that fight in and through us.
God could clean up all the evil now, but he wants us to fight. He wants us to grow to love, just like good parents want their children to grow to be good people. God allows evil in the world for only one reason, so that a greater good can come of it.
The good news is that God himself took on Human flesh and defeated evil so we are fighting a battle that is already won.
I'll continue this discussion later as to what role Sin has waged on us, and how Jesus has conquered death which came through Sin later... but I hope some of this helps. It's a good refresher for me.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
A Homily for my brother seminarians
This was from a week ago when I was assigned to preach at the February 7th daily Mass.
Lec. # 329- Mon, Feb 7th, 2010- Deacon Vincent Bresowar
Readings: Gen 1:1-19, Ps 104, Mk 6:53-56
My brothers,
We have exactly 95 days, including today, until the end of the school year. That’s 13 weeks and 4 days… or, if you want to make it sound shorter that’s 3 months and 5 days or a ¼ of year remaining. That’s not a very long time and yet for most of us there is still a lot to be accomplished before we finish this semester… It may be that many of us are starting to wear down and get tired, tired of school work, tired of meetings, tired of the same routine day in and day out. Maybe We are tired of our struggles, tired of our sins, tired of asking for forgiveness over and over, it may be that some of us are even asking ourselves, is all of this worth it?
As can happen during formation, there comes a time or times when the seminarian begins to wonder if God really intended Him to be a priest, to go through all of this and if so why?
In today’s readings we are reminded of God’s great works. His great work of creation in the first reading, everything he created he created good, and in the Gospel we see the God-man and all the wonderful miracles brought about by this great work of the incarnation. We read that as many of the sick that simply touched the tassel on the cloak of Jesus were healed.
My brothers we hear these stories over and over, and we understand, we have come to believe that our God is a God who does Great works for his children, those who were created in his Image and likeness, works that we really cannot fully comprehend but that we continue to witness to in our daily lives.
But of all of his great works that we witness to, the greatest of these is the work he made on Calvary where he redeemed the World and opened up the gates of paradise for his children who had lost it by their sin.
In this work, God defeated death once and for all, making it so that we have no reason to fear our bodily death so long as we participate in his sanctifying Grace.
What a great gift but what does it have to do with us and finishing this school year?
Well This greatest of works done by our God is made present on the altar as you know in an unbloody manner every day. So Every day, the Holy Spirit descends down upon the gifts of bread and wine and transforms them into the Body and Blood of the Lamb whose sacrifice is made present. Every day we receive the fruit of this greatest work into our very selves becoming united with our Savior.
And as you are well aware, none of this happens except through the hands of the priest. If for no other reason, that makes being ordained priest worth it.
The cure de’ Ars is quoted as saying: ‘The priest is something great! If he knew it, he would die.’”
As we journey through this semester, and as we persevere through formation day in and day out, may we be reminded, especially at the altar, of the great Love that burns in the Heart of our Savior for you and for me and for our Yes to Him and His Church, and lest we forget we are not alone, that all the angels and saints in Heaven, the holy suffering souls in purgatory, and thousands of men and women in the Church militant are praying and interceding for us that we might persevere, that we might be holy priests very soon and then forever.
May God give us through His very flesh and blood today exactly what we need finish, to persevere to the very end so that His great work may be accomplished in you and I and countless souls won for Him by our willingness to say Yes to the invitation which comes from Jesus to be His holy consecrated priests.
Lec. # 329- Mon, Feb 7th, 2010- Deacon Vincent Bresowar
Readings: Gen 1:1-19, Ps 104, Mk 6:53-56
My brothers,
We have exactly 95 days, including today, until the end of the school year. That’s 13 weeks and 4 days… or, if you want to make it sound shorter that’s 3 months and 5 days or a ¼ of year remaining. That’s not a very long time and yet for most of us there is still a lot to be accomplished before we finish this semester… It may be that many of us are starting to wear down and get tired, tired of school work, tired of meetings, tired of the same routine day in and day out. Maybe We are tired of our struggles, tired of our sins, tired of asking for forgiveness over and over, it may be that some of us are even asking ourselves, is all of this worth it?
As can happen during formation, there comes a time or times when the seminarian begins to wonder if God really intended Him to be a priest, to go through all of this and if so why?
In today’s readings we are reminded of God’s great works. His great work of creation in the first reading, everything he created he created good, and in the Gospel we see the God-man and all the wonderful miracles brought about by this great work of the incarnation. We read that as many of the sick that simply touched the tassel on the cloak of Jesus were healed.
My brothers we hear these stories over and over, and we understand, we have come to believe that our God is a God who does Great works for his children, those who were created in his Image and likeness, works that we really cannot fully comprehend but that we continue to witness to in our daily lives.
But of all of his great works that we witness to, the greatest of these is the work he made on Calvary where he redeemed the World and opened up the gates of paradise for his children who had lost it by their sin.
In this work, God defeated death once and for all, making it so that we have no reason to fear our bodily death so long as we participate in his sanctifying Grace.
What a great gift but what does it have to do with us and finishing this school year?
Well This greatest of works done by our God is made present on the altar as you know in an unbloody manner every day. So Every day, the Holy Spirit descends down upon the gifts of bread and wine and transforms them into the Body and Blood of the Lamb whose sacrifice is made present. Every day we receive the fruit of this greatest work into our very selves becoming united with our Savior.
And as you are well aware, none of this happens except through the hands of the priest. If for no other reason, that makes being ordained priest worth it.
The cure de’ Ars is quoted as saying: ‘The priest is something great! If he knew it, he would die.’”
As we journey through this semester, and as we persevere through formation day in and day out, may we be reminded, especially at the altar, of the great Love that burns in the Heart of our Savior for you and for me and for our Yes to Him and His Church, and lest we forget we are not alone, that all the angels and saints in Heaven, the holy suffering souls in purgatory, and thousands of men and women in the Church militant are praying and interceding for us that we might persevere, that we might be holy priests very soon and then forever.
May God give us through His very flesh and blood today exactly what we need finish, to persevere to the very end so that His great work may be accomplished in you and I and countless souls won for Him by our willingness to say Yes to the invitation which comes from Jesus to be His holy consecrated priests.
February, 2011
I'm a little less than four months away from priestly ordination. As it is, I have decided to use this blog as my primary site for posting homilies. That way, when on occasion, someone wants a copy of it, and they have web browsing capacity, they can find them here. I will not post all my homilies, but a select few and when people ask. That's it for now.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Bl. John Amias (16th century)
John was a cloth merchant in England. After his wife died, he divided his property among his many children, and travelled to France to study for the priesthood. When he was ordained, he returned to England to serve the underground Church. He was arrested and killed for the crime of priesthood.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Luther, Indulgences, The History
These are my class notes from March 11, 2010. Why Post them? Because it was an interesting class.
Never can an indulgence be applied to some future act which one may commit. So if you accidentally break my window, I may forgive you, but you still have to pay for it. The indulgence, using the same analogy, is that you break my window, I forgive you but you don't have to pay me anymore. We still have atonement to do for our sins, we still have to pay the piper for our sins, that is what purgatory is for, to finish the cleansing. An indulgence omits that punishment, that cleansing.
Scripture foundations- Matthew 16:18-19
An indulgence erases the consequence for sin.
Scriptural foundation- Matthew 18:23-35 (parable illustrating Jesus' approval of an act of mercy), John 8:1-11 (woman caught in adultery- in this case, the legal consequence was execution by stoning and we know how Jesus responded to this)
Martin Luther- born in 1483, named for Martin De Tours. His father was a minor, who was a brutal alcoholic. Domestic violence shaped his upbringing. It is possible that his father was mentally ill and Luther inherited it. His father did fund an education for Luther. He hoped he would be a lawyer and handle family business. Luther was a quick learner, he was multi-lingual, he was a powerful speaker, he had a domineering personality. He graduated with honors, with a masters of arts. He was enrolled in the law school (according to the educational theory of the day, you had your complete education first and then specialize in something). After the enrollment something happened. On July 2, 1505, Luther was traveling from university to his home (or visaversa). A bolt of lighting struck a nearby tree, and Luther took cover. According to his own account, he prayed to St. Anne, and promised that if she saved him, he would become a monk. He did survive, and he enraged his father by instead of going to law school, he entered a friary in Erfurt, Germany, 15 days after that thunderstorm. This does not qualify correct discernment. NO, does this conform in anyway in to what is a religious vocation? NO. This is another sad example of those going into the church who do not have a vocation. 2 years later, he was ordained a priests on April 7, 1507. He was ordained for the Augustinians. Luther arrived in in the friary, already inflicted with scrupulosity. He was a good student, however, he very soon developed a subversion to scholastic theology as it was being taught there (Scholasticism had deteriorated from what it was originally suppose to be which was learning how to think and use reason to just pure memorization). He studied scripture. In 1508, only three years after he opened his first theology text book, he devolved a corner stone of what would become Lutheran theology based on Romans 1:17- THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.
Luther Theology corrected
- the word JUST translated Dikaiosune (Greek)- the correct translation of this work is righteousness, being in a right relationship. The translation JUST is incomplete. So instead of the JUST shall live by faith, it should be the Righteous should live by faith. If it is translated correct, it means, when we have faith, we are already in a right relationship with God, not that you are saying yes I have faith means that all of a sudden the relationship is there. This is clarified in James 2:26- for just a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
- so just declaring that yes I have faith so I am saved is incorrect, rather, it is faith in works, declaring and living results in the relationship.
He started writing about his erroneous theology in 1508 which was 9 years before his 95 Thesis.
IN 1511, three years after his invented theology of justification by faith alone. He was transferred to Wittenberg, where he taught and assisted in a local parish which the Augustinians staffed. The following year, 1512, he received his doctrine in theology, and begin teaching scripture. His first lecture was on the book of psalms, and it was a series of lectures. Luther had disliked scholastic theology, it took patience but he lacked patience even though he was brilliant. Scholasticsm would have been burdensome to him on the intellectual level, he rejected the basic philosophical, the absolute unity of faith and reason, and an understanding of reality within a context of a priori metaphysics and ontology. He was rejecting the metaphysics of a realists (it means that they believed in objective reality, that there are in the mind of God objective eternal truths that are real). Instead, Luther would go back in history of the scholastics to find the trouble makers, the William of Occam's out there and adhered to a erroneous metaphysics called Nomilnalism (which states that we cannot know objective truth and reality, all we can know is individuals, not the objective nature of what it means to be a thing- like a human being). Without the correct understanding of reality, that you start with ontology, that there is the one True God and that he created the universe, if you reject this and cut off the top of the intellectual period, what are you left with? Basically man becomes the measure of all things, I can know the name of a thing but what is the true definition, basically what my conscious tells me.
With this in mind, in September of 1517, one month before he kicks off the Protestant movement, Luther had a dry run so to speak. He has a public disputation, against Scholasticism. He is defending the Nominalist position against Realist (which has a different meaning then than it does today). So this is a public forum, by an ordained priest (Luther) publicly defending the position that there is not objective reality. From Luther's perspective, this disputation was a rounding success. He had this charisma that the younger students liked because he was rebellious. They liked the idea of the individual conscience as being supreme.
While after this dispute is breaking up, everyone is congratulating him he heard about the Dominican Father Tetzel who is making claims about indulgences who was saying that people no longer need to go to confession if they pay for the indulgence. Tetzel was obviously wrong in what he was teaching, indulgences were not wrong but the way Tetzel was teaching them was very wrong. Luther decides to take on Tetzel. So on October 31st, 1517, which is the day before a Holy Day of Obligation (which is All Saints Day), he post his 95 Thesis. Of these 95, 41 were judged to be heretical. They deal with indulgences, the whole sacramental services of the Church (specifically penance).
In previous centuries, there were many attempts as schism and such. The Church had survived it all, and had been brought into a false sense of security. The Catholic Church did not take Luther as seriously as they should have. They thought that what happened in the East (The great schism) could not happen in the West. Luther wrote a letter to Albert (Bishop) of Wittenberg demanding that he stop Father Tetzel. This is actually a right act because Tetzel was teaching error. No only did Albert do nothing, which was wrong, he should have smashed Tetzel, instead he reported Luther to Rome as a trouble maker. This report made it to the curia, so they sent it to the Dominicans to respond. So the guy they sent it to is a Dominican theologian with the curia who's name was Silverio Prieras, OP. He replied in May of 1518 with an essay concerning the Authority of the Pope.
Solverio told Tetzel that LUther was on to him and calling him out for the wrong act in which Tetzel was teaching about indulgences. So Tetzel fires back with his own 50 Thesis against Luther which actually did not defend himself in his wrong teaching but instead defending the Church and her authority to forgive sins (which was accurate). He ended up dying shortly after so we don't know what his role would have been. It would have been nice if the whole issue ended here because Tetzel who was a trouble maker in his erroneous teaching had died.
Before his death though (Johanne Tetzel), Luther was called in by his own superiors (The Augustinians). No one had sent the 95 thesis to Rome yet. His superiors were upset with Luther because he wrote a letter to a bishop in another diocese without telling them. The meeting had nothing to with Theology but was a disciplinary thing because they had made them look bad. Luther lost his temper (which was normal) and he started screaming, they screamed back. Luther wants to talk indulgences, where they want to talk authority. Luther goes so far as to deny the validity of indulgence period. This is going way overboard. He says because the word does not occur in scripture it is not valid and here you have the birth of Sola-Scriptora. The assertion is wrong though, there is a scriptural foundation for indulgences (see above).
Against Sola-Scriptora
- 1 Tim 3:15- But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth
- Plus the Church wrote the bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
5 months later, Luther was summoned to be the Master General of the Augustinian Order. Thomas d Vio had been the Master General of the Augustinians. He was an ardent Thomist; what he was trying to was correct some of the late medieval form of Scholasticism and restore the high medieval form of it. He had several meetings with Luther. Luther refused to recant and made the claim that He, Luther, was a loyal member of the church but as a professor he had a right to freely question matters fo the faith in its teaching. So error stops being error if it is presented in an academic setting. (Luther example- 2 +2 is 5 is no longer wrong until it has been debated)
It so happened that someone was ready to debate Luther. HE was a professor of Theology in Bulgaria, JOhan Maier von Eck (1486-1543). Eck is of the nobility, and Luther is not, so there is a class difference too. The much anticipated debate took place at Liepzig from June 27-July 16, 1519. Luther would not admit it, but he was intimidated by meeting Eck because Eck was of nobility. Luther invited someone to join him who came from LUther's college. Eck was polished, self-contained and self-assured. Luther used his usual strategy of shouting and stringing together countless sayings that had no meaning. Eck saw right through this, and he started to dissect Luther's arguments. Luther could not handle this because he had emotional issues. He has very little patience. Screaming would not work for Luther. He lost control until he became hysterical. Eck had no difficulty in exposing Luther and his beliefs. HE got Luther to admit three things publicly. First, that the entire church hierarchy was nothing ubt a human institution. Second, that the bishop of Rome did nto have primacy by the nature of his office, but only as a historical development. Third, that scripture was superior to papal pronouncements, Church councils, the Church Fathers, and was the only norm in matters of faith and morals. Von Eck basically gets Luther to admit that he is a Heretic. This is the first time that Luther is publicly identified as a Heretic.
The same year as this Leipzeg debate, the Protestant movement spread. People started publishing papers about this, the whole academic network, which was disobedient already, spread this like wildfire spreads. There was this huge portion of the population which was ready to reject the Church because of various abuses from the Church and others over the past centuries.
Going West- Switzerland- We meet another disloyal Catholic priest who had no vocation... Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). Switzerland was not a nation state at this time. Zwingli ordained a priest in 1505, it was a was well established reality that the basis for the Swiss economy came from renting out their young men as mercenaries. They were very much in demand. Zwingli began to publicly preach against this as being immoral. He said that they were trading human blood for gold. There is nothing heretical in this teaching, this is what he believed. But, since the papacy was a noteworthy client that hired the Swiss to fight its wars. And Since the papacy had become in many way corrupt during the Renaissance, the upper powers of the church became a regular target of Zwingli. Once the pattern of doing so begin, it became easy to protest one issue to denouncing other things. So the Pope was attacked by Zwingli not just for paying for mercenaries to attack other things which led him down the spiral of heresy. Neither Luther of Zwingli had real vocations and they had already had animosity against the Church.
Zwingli heard about Luther, particularly Luther's assertion of only that which can be found in the Bible need be believed. In 1519, Zwingli broke from the Church (interestingly, Luther and Zwingli are identified as heretics in the same year). Zwingli publicly started teaching gnostic positions (Manichean). He repudiates celibacy because it was imposed by a hierarchy that does not have biblical foundation according to him. He says monasticism was made up, he denounces sacred images for iconoclastic reasons (basically because all material things were evil). Violence began almost immediately. The cantons of Zurcih, Geneua left immediately and became Protestant. Whereas the Cantons of Freiburg and Lecerne stayed Catholic. The violence begin with these four. When in power, Zwingli begin imposing his manichean protestant program, he starts to vandalize Church property, smashing windows, murdering priest and nuns. The first war of the Reformation begins in Switzerland. HE dies himself killing Catholics in 1531. But we are not finished with Zwingli. The wars of religion have begun in 1519 and Switzerland has never again been completely Catholic.
Luther's spiral was slower. On June 15th, 1520, a year after the debate, after being exposed as a heretic, the Pope (Leo X) gets involved and issues a Bull identifying 41 of the 95 thesis as heretical. Luther was offered the opportunity to recant, it would have to be done publicly and in writing and if he did not the result would be public excommunication. 2 months later, August of 1520, Luther publishes a pamphlet called "Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation." He is referring to the German speaking people because there is not a German nation yet. IN this he picks up Autosephely, Galicanism, which is the national church ecclesiology and he presents it as if he invented it. He found a receptive audience because the Catholic Church had lost credibility because of a bunch of reasons, not only because of corrupt popes but also feudalism and corruption in monarchies. He is able to get support from local German princes and Dukes who for financial reasons, do not want to send money to Rome and they want to steal Church property. So the Lutheran cause, who identified his cause as the "German" cause and puts Germans against Italians in his cause.... he is able to have success. More later...
Never can an indulgence be applied to some future act which one may commit. So if you accidentally break my window, I may forgive you, but you still have to pay for it. The indulgence, using the same analogy, is that you break my window, I forgive you but you don't have to pay me anymore. We still have atonement to do for our sins, we still have to pay the piper for our sins, that is what purgatory is for, to finish the cleansing. An indulgence omits that punishment, that cleansing.
Scripture foundations- Matthew 16:18-19
An indulgence erases the consequence for sin.
Scriptural foundation- Matthew 18:23-35 (parable illustrating Jesus' approval of an act of mercy), John 8:1-11 (woman caught in adultery- in this case, the legal consequence was execution by stoning and we know how Jesus responded to this)
Martin Luther- born in 1483, named for Martin De Tours. His father was a minor, who was a brutal alcoholic. Domestic violence shaped his upbringing. It is possible that his father was mentally ill and Luther inherited it. His father did fund an education for Luther. He hoped he would be a lawyer and handle family business. Luther was a quick learner, he was multi-lingual, he was a powerful speaker, he had a domineering personality. He graduated with honors, with a masters of arts. He was enrolled in the law school (according to the educational theory of the day, you had your complete education first and then specialize in something). After the enrollment something happened. On July 2, 1505, Luther was traveling from university to his home (or visaversa). A bolt of lighting struck a nearby tree, and Luther took cover. According to his own account, he prayed to St. Anne, and promised that if she saved him, he would become a monk. He did survive, and he enraged his father by instead of going to law school, he entered a friary in Erfurt, Germany, 15 days after that thunderstorm. This does not qualify correct discernment. NO, does this conform in anyway in to what is a religious vocation? NO. This is another sad example of those going into the church who do not have a vocation. 2 years later, he was ordained a priests on April 7, 1507. He was ordained for the Augustinians. Luther arrived in in the friary, already inflicted with scrupulosity. He was a good student, however, he very soon developed a subversion to scholastic theology as it was being taught there (Scholasticism had deteriorated from what it was originally suppose to be which was learning how to think and use reason to just pure memorization). He studied scripture. In 1508, only three years after he opened his first theology text book, he devolved a corner stone of what would become Lutheran theology based on Romans 1:17- THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.
Luther Theology corrected
- the word JUST translated Dikaiosune (Greek)- the correct translation of this work is righteousness, being in a right relationship. The translation JUST is incomplete. So instead of the JUST shall live by faith, it should be the Righteous should live by faith. If it is translated correct, it means, when we have faith, we are already in a right relationship with God, not that you are saying yes I have faith means that all of a sudden the relationship is there. This is clarified in James 2:26- for just a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
- so just declaring that yes I have faith so I am saved is incorrect, rather, it is faith in works, declaring and living results in the relationship.
He started writing about his erroneous theology in 1508 which was 9 years before his 95 Thesis.
IN 1511, three years after his invented theology of justification by faith alone. He was transferred to Wittenberg, where he taught and assisted in a local parish which the Augustinians staffed. The following year, 1512, he received his doctrine in theology, and begin teaching scripture. His first lecture was on the book of psalms, and it was a series of lectures. Luther had disliked scholastic theology, it took patience but he lacked patience even though he was brilliant. Scholasticsm would have been burdensome to him on the intellectual level, he rejected the basic philosophical, the absolute unity of faith and reason, and an understanding of reality within a context of a priori metaphysics and ontology. He was rejecting the metaphysics of a realists (it means that they believed in objective reality, that there are in the mind of God objective eternal truths that are real). Instead, Luther would go back in history of the scholastics to find the trouble makers, the William of Occam's out there and adhered to a erroneous metaphysics called Nomilnalism (which states that we cannot know objective truth and reality, all we can know is individuals, not the objective nature of what it means to be a thing- like a human being). Without the correct understanding of reality, that you start with ontology, that there is the one True God and that he created the universe, if you reject this and cut off the top of the intellectual period, what are you left with? Basically man becomes the measure of all things, I can know the name of a thing but what is the true definition, basically what my conscious tells me.
With this in mind, in September of 1517, one month before he kicks off the Protestant movement, Luther had a dry run so to speak. He has a public disputation, against Scholasticism. He is defending the Nominalist position against Realist (which has a different meaning then than it does today). So this is a public forum, by an ordained priest (Luther) publicly defending the position that there is not objective reality. From Luther's perspective, this disputation was a rounding success. He had this charisma that the younger students liked because he was rebellious. They liked the idea of the individual conscience as being supreme.
While after this dispute is breaking up, everyone is congratulating him he heard about the Dominican Father Tetzel who is making claims about indulgences who was saying that people no longer need to go to confession if they pay for the indulgence. Tetzel was obviously wrong in what he was teaching, indulgences were not wrong but the way Tetzel was teaching them was very wrong. Luther decides to take on Tetzel. So on October 31st, 1517, which is the day before a Holy Day of Obligation (which is All Saints Day), he post his 95 Thesis. Of these 95, 41 were judged to be heretical. They deal with indulgences, the whole sacramental services of the Church (specifically penance).
In previous centuries, there were many attempts as schism and such. The Church had survived it all, and had been brought into a false sense of security. The Catholic Church did not take Luther as seriously as they should have. They thought that what happened in the East (The great schism) could not happen in the West. Luther wrote a letter to Albert (Bishop) of Wittenberg demanding that he stop Father Tetzel. This is actually a right act because Tetzel was teaching error. No only did Albert do nothing, which was wrong, he should have smashed Tetzel, instead he reported Luther to Rome as a trouble maker. This report made it to the curia, so they sent it to the Dominicans to respond. So the guy they sent it to is a Dominican theologian with the curia who's name was Silverio Prieras, OP. He replied in May of 1518 with an essay concerning the Authority of the Pope.
Solverio told Tetzel that LUther was on to him and calling him out for the wrong act in which Tetzel was teaching about indulgences. So Tetzel fires back with his own 50 Thesis against Luther which actually did not defend himself in his wrong teaching but instead defending the Church and her authority to forgive sins (which was accurate). He ended up dying shortly after so we don't know what his role would have been. It would have been nice if the whole issue ended here because Tetzel who was a trouble maker in his erroneous teaching had died.
Before his death though (Johanne Tetzel), Luther was called in by his own superiors (The Augustinians). No one had sent the 95 thesis to Rome yet. His superiors were upset with Luther because he wrote a letter to a bishop in another diocese without telling them. The meeting had nothing to with Theology but was a disciplinary thing because they had made them look bad. Luther lost his temper (which was normal) and he started screaming, they screamed back. Luther wants to talk indulgences, where they want to talk authority. Luther goes so far as to deny the validity of indulgence period. This is going way overboard. He says because the word does not occur in scripture it is not valid and here you have the birth of Sola-Scriptora. The assertion is wrong though, there is a scriptural foundation for indulgences (see above).
Against Sola-Scriptora
- 1 Tim 3:15- But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth
- Plus the Church wrote the bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
5 months later, Luther was summoned to be the Master General of the Augustinian Order. Thomas d Vio had been the Master General of the Augustinians. He was an ardent Thomist; what he was trying to was correct some of the late medieval form of Scholasticism and restore the high medieval form of it. He had several meetings with Luther. Luther refused to recant and made the claim that He, Luther, was a loyal member of the church but as a professor he had a right to freely question matters fo the faith in its teaching. So error stops being error if it is presented in an academic setting. (Luther example- 2 +2 is 5 is no longer wrong until it has been debated)
It so happened that someone was ready to debate Luther. HE was a professor of Theology in Bulgaria, JOhan Maier von Eck (1486-1543). Eck is of the nobility, and Luther is not, so there is a class difference too. The much anticipated debate took place at Liepzig from June 27-July 16, 1519. Luther would not admit it, but he was intimidated by meeting Eck because Eck was of nobility. Luther invited someone to join him who came from LUther's college. Eck was polished, self-contained and self-assured. Luther used his usual strategy of shouting and stringing together countless sayings that had no meaning. Eck saw right through this, and he started to dissect Luther's arguments. Luther could not handle this because he had emotional issues. He has very little patience. Screaming would not work for Luther. He lost control until he became hysterical. Eck had no difficulty in exposing Luther and his beliefs. HE got Luther to admit three things publicly. First, that the entire church hierarchy was nothing ubt a human institution. Second, that the bishop of Rome did nto have primacy by the nature of his office, but only as a historical development. Third, that scripture was superior to papal pronouncements, Church councils, the Church Fathers, and was the only norm in matters of faith and morals. Von Eck basically gets Luther to admit that he is a Heretic. This is the first time that Luther is publicly identified as a Heretic.
The same year as this Leipzeg debate, the Protestant movement spread. People started publishing papers about this, the whole academic network, which was disobedient already, spread this like wildfire spreads. There was this huge portion of the population which was ready to reject the Church because of various abuses from the Church and others over the past centuries.
Going West- Switzerland- We meet another disloyal Catholic priest who had no vocation... Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). Switzerland was not a nation state at this time. Zwingli ordained a priest in 1505, it was a was well established reality that the basis for the Swiss economy came from renting out their young men as mercenaries. They were very much in demand. Zwingli began to publicly preach against this as being immoral. He said that they were trading human blood for gold. There is nothing heretical in this teaching, this is what he believed. But, since the papacy was a noteworthy client that hired the Swiss to fight its wars. And Since the papacy had become in many way corrupt during the Renaissance, the upper powers of the church became a regular target of Zwingli. Once the pattern of doing so begin, it became easy to protest one issue to denouncing other things. So the Pope was attacked by Zwingli not just for paying for mercenaries to attack other things which led him down the spiral of heresy. Neither Luther of Zwingli had real vocations and they had already had animosity against the Church.
Zwingli heard about Luther, particularly Luther's assertion of only that which can be found in the Bible need be believed. In 1519, Zwingli broke from the Church (interestingly, Luther and Zwingli are identified as heretics in the same year). Zwingli publicly started teaching gnostic positions (Manichean). He repudiates celibacy because it was imposed by a hierarchy that does not have biblical foundation according to him. He says monasticism was made up, he denounces sacred images for iconoclastic reasons (basically because all material things were evil). Violence began almost immediately. The cantons of Zurcih, Geneua left immediately and became Protestant. Whereas the Cantons of Freiburg and Lecerne stayed Catholic. The violence begin with these four. When in power, Zwingli begin imposing his manichean protestant program, he starts to vandalize Church property, smashing windows, murdering priest and nuns. The first war of the Reformation begins in Switzerland. HE dies himself killing Catholics in 1531. But we are not finished with Zwingli. The wars of religion have begun in 1519 and Switzerland has never again been completely Catholic.
Luther's spiral was slower. On June 15th, 1520, a year after the debate, after being exposed as a heretic, the Pope (Leo X) gets involved and issues a Bull identifying 41 of the 95 thesis as heretical. Luther was offered the opportunity to recant, it would have to be done publicly and in writing and if he did not the result would be public excommunication. 2 months later, August of 1520, Luther publishes a pamphlet called "Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation." He is referring to the German speaking people because there is not a German nation yet. IN this he picks up Autosephely, Galicanism, which is the national church ecclesiology and he presents it as if he invented it. He found a receptive audience because the Catholic Church had lost credibility because of a bunch of reasons, not only because of corrupt popes but also feudalism and corruption in monarchies. He is able to get support from local German princes and Dukes who for financial reasons, do not want to send money to Rome and they want to steal Church property. So the Lutheran cause, who identified his cause as the "German" cause and puts Germans against Italians in his cause.... he is able to have success. More later...
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
From "Caritas in Veritate"
The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and skeptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Abortion and African Americans
Here is an interesting article on the effects abortion has had on the African American community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
