DEI VERBUM

CHAPTER II

HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Confessional

It's too bad this guy is not a priest. Click on title for link.

What a powerfull testament to the natural law, sin, conscience, something outside of ourselves, our cry for help, the truth of the catholic church and the sacrament of reconciliation.

If they only knew the truth, how they could really be free.

The Feast of the Annunciation

The Feast of the Annunciation of Our Most Holy Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary is celebrated on March 25 each year. The Feast commemorates the announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God, would become incarnate and enter into this world through her womb

Nicene Creed

For those of you who may have never read it, here it is. It has relevance regarding the post below this one.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Are Mormons Christians?

This is the introduction to a comparison of beliefs, see link above for the whole article.


The question “Are Mormons Christian?” is probably the most popular question in the world for those just discovering the church and its beliefs. It’s also probably the most polarizing one. How should it be answered?
To help everyone understand the question, I’ve prepared a brief comparison of the beliefs of LDS (if you don’t know, this abbreviation derives from the official name of the Mormon church: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”) to the beliefs of most Christians, from the time of Christ to the present day.To demonstrate Christian beliefs, I’ll be using the Nicene Creed (or, if you like to nit-pick, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed). Catholics profess it each Sunday as a statement of our common faith, and many other Christian communions also use it, or at least accept the beliefs contained in it. The LDS church doesn’t have as complete a creed; the nearest thing to it is the “Articles of Faith,” which is contained in one of their volumes of scripture called The Pearl of Great Price. But it doesn’t cover as much of their belief as the Creed does ours. So for LDS beliefs, the reader will just have to take my word for it. I’ve read all of the LDS scriptures and interacted with LDS for a little over two years, so I think I can be fairly accurate. Though LDS authorities sometimes have varying opinions on some points of doctrine, I’ll only include that which is firmly established as official LDS belief at this time.

Iconoclasm

The Transfiguration vs. Jackson Pollack


The following is a section from "The Spirit of the Liturgy" by Ratzinger.

See the full article by clicking the title.



...our world of images no longer surpasses the bounds of sense and appearance, and the flood of images that surrounds us really means the end of the image. If something cannot be photographed, it cannot be seen. In this situation, the art of the icon, sacred art, depending as it does on a wider kind of seeing, becomes impossible. What is more, art itself, which in impressionism and expressionism explored the extreme possibilities of the sense of sight, becomes literally object-less. Art turns into experimenting with self-created worlds, empty "creativity", which no longer perceives the Creator Spiritus, the Creator Spirit. It attempts to take his place, and yet, in so doing, it manages to produce only what is arbitrary and vacuous, bringing home to man the absurdity of his role as creator.



Again we must ask: Where do we go from here? Let us try to sum up what we have said so far and to identify the fundamental principles of an art ordered to divine worship.

1. The complete absence of images is incompatible with faith in the Incarnation of God. God has acted in history and entered into our sensible world, so that it may become transparent to Him. Images of beauty, in which the mystery of the invisible God becomes visible, are an essential part of Christian worship. There will always be ups and downs in the history of iconography, upsurge and decline, and therefore periods when images are somewhat sparse. But they can never be totally lacking. Iconoclasm is not a Christian option.

Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith

I, N.N., ______ years of age, born outside the Catholic Church, have held and believed errors contrary to her teaching. Now, enlightened by divine grace, I kneel before you, Reverend Father _____________, having before my eyes and touching with my hand the holy Gospels. And with firm faith I believe and profess each and all the articles contained in the Apostles’ Creed, that is: I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; He descended into hell, the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
I admit and embrace most firmly the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all the other constitutions and prescriptions of the Church.
I admit the Sacred Scriptures according to the sense which has been held and is held by Holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, and I shall never accept or interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
I profess that the sacraments of the New Law are, truly and precisely, seven in number, instituted for the salvation of mankind, though all are not necessary for each individual: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. I profess that all confer grace, and that of these Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege.
I also accept and admit the ritual of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the above mentioned Sacraments.
I accept and hold, in each and every part, all that has been defined and declared by the Sacred Council of Trent concerning Original Sin and Justification. I profess that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is really, truly and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there takes place what the Church calls transubstantiation, that is, the change of all the substance of the bread into the Body of Christ and of all the substance of wine into the Blood. I confess also that in receiving under either of these species one receives Jesus Christ, whole and entire.
I firmly hold that Purgatory exists and that the souls detained there can be helped by the prayers of the faithful. Likewise I hold that the saints, who reign with Jesus Christ, should be venerated and invoked, that they offer prayers to God for us and that their relics are to be venerated.
I firmly profess that the images of Jesus Christ and of the Mother of God, ever Virgin, as well as of all the saints, should be given due honor and veneration. I also affirm that Jesus Christ left to the Church the faculty to grant indulgences, and that their use is most salutary to the Christian people. I recognize the Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as the mother and teacher of all the churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Besides I accept, without hesitation, and profess all that has been handed down, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and by the general Councils, especially by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Vatican General Council, and in a special manner concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. At the same time I condemn and reprove all that the Church has condemned and reproved. This same Catholic Faith, outside of which nobody can be saved, I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, the same I promise and swear to maintain and profess with the help of God, entire, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life; and I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same Faith shall be held, taught, and publicly professed by all who depend on me and by those of whom I shall have charge.
So help me God and these holy Gospels.
Roman Ritual (1944), Supplement for North America

Happy Birthday to Me. I can't wait to taste this sweet kentucky bourbon. My wife gave me some nice Woodford Reserve.

“Liberalism deprives us of the joy that can only come from the obedience of faith”

As you can see I have changed the name of my blog. I changed it due to the article below (and to a lack of being clever enough to come up with something on my own). I believe it describes clearly what drives me most. The quest for truth. And that is primarily what this blog of mine goes through.


Click link above for the full article by George Weigel over at Pontifications



Newman was no romantic about the Catholic Church; he knew all about its weaknesses and flaws, and he suffered repeatedly at the hands of Catholic incompetents and heresy hunters. But he read his own life, and his journey into Catholicism, in the terms he asked to have inscribed on his tombstone: Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem (From shadows and appearances into truth).
Catholicism, he insisted, is not a matter of opinion but truth. “Liberal” Catholicism, like every other form of “liberal” Christianity, was its own worst enemy, in Newman’s view. “Liberal” religion had no internal brake, no way of saying, “Here is where opinion stops and truth begins.” It had no mechanism to keep itself from unraveling, from changing itself to the point where there was no self left. “Liberal” religion couldn’t tell the difference between appearances and reality, shadows and the truth of things.
That’s as true today as it was in Newman’s day. And it’s just as hard a saying today as it was then—perhaps harder.
We live in a culture saturated by what Newman called “liberalism”—a culture in which about all that can be conceded is that there may be your truth and my truth, what’s good for you and what’s good for me. To assert that there might be something properly described as the truth is not only considered odd, it’s usually considered intolerant. In a culture that values “tolerance” (or what it imagines to be tolerance) above all else, to be called “intolerant” is about as bad as it gets. Newman’s life and work suggest it’s a risk worth taking—if you understand that genuine tolerance means engaging differences with respect and civility, not in avoiding differences as if they made no difference; if you’re interested in traveling ex umbris et imaginibus—from shadows and appearances—into the light. Newman’s life and work remind us that the quest for truth is one of the greatest of human quests—if we understand that the purpose of the journey is not the journey itself but getting to the destination, which is the light….

N.T. Wright's Critique of the Da Vinci Code and Culture

The full lecture titled "The Challenge of Historic Christianity to Post-Modern Fantasy" can be found at the link above.


Let me sum up this lecture in the following way. The Da Vinci Code is a symptom of something much bigger, a lightning rod which has throbbed with the electricity of the postmodern western world.
One of the basic fault lines in the contemporary Western world is the line between neo-Gnosticism on the one hand and the challenge of Jesus on the other. Please note that, despite strenuous attempts to make this line coincide with the current sharp left-right polarization of American culture and politics, it simply doesn’t. Nor, for that matter, does it coincide with the polarizations of British or European culture either. So what is this real, deep polarization which runs through our world?
Neo-Gnosticism is the philosophy that invites you to search deep inside yourself and discover some exciting things by which you must then live. It is the philosophy which declares that the only real moral imperative is that you should then be true to what you find when you engage in that deep inward search. But this is not a religion of redemption. It is not at all a Jewish vision of the covenant God who sets free the helpless slaves. It appeals, on the contrary, to the pride that says “I’m really quite an exciting person, deep down, whatever I may look like outwardly” — the theme of half the cheap movies and novels in today’s world. It appeals to the stimulus of that ever-deeper navel-gazing (“finding out who I really am”) which is the subject of a million self-help books, and the home-made validation of a thousand ethical confusions. It corresponds, in other words, to what a great many people in our world want to believe and want to do, rather than to the hard and bracing challenge of the very Jewish gospel of Jesus. It appears to legitimate precisely that sort of religion which a large swathe of America and a fair chunk of Europe yearns for: a free-for-all, do-it-yourself spirituality, with a strong though ineffective agenda of social protest against the powers that be, and an I'm-OK-you're-OK attitude on all matters religious and ethical. At least, with one exception: You can have any sort of spirituality you like (Zen, labyrinths, Tai Chi) as long as it isn’t orthodox Christianity.

Calvin and Infant Baptism

Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming, (Matth. 19: 13,) because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits.

Just a rental.

DSC03350.JPG
Originally uploaded by reedfamilypicks.

Here is our new house that we will be moving into on March 24th.

Finally out of the nest.

DSC03233

DSC03233
Originally uploaded by reedfamilypicks.

Isaac 6mo.

Neuhaus on the magisterium

An excerpt from Neuhaus' new book.

click on subject link for full article.



For the Protestant, the act of faith is an act of faith in Christ, and only then, if at all, is it an act of faith in the Church. They are two acts of faith. For the Catholic, the act of faith in Christ and his Church is one act of faith. In the Nicene Creed we do not say, “I believe that there is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” We say, “I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Because I believe in Christ, I believe in his Church, I entrust myself to her. Christ the head and the Church his body constitute the totus Christus, the total Christ…. I am a Catholic because, among many other reasons, I do not know what else I would do with my trust. Trust is risk, trust is faith. Not blind faith but faith with eyes wide open. Christ as true God and true man can, by definition, not betray my trust. But the troubling thought is not easily dismissed: The totus Christus, including his very human Church, conceivably could betray my trust. I believe she never will.
But how can I know that? How can I know so much that I believe to be true except by believing it to be true? Trust, which is an act of love, is a way of knowing. How can a bridge know that the bridegroom will be faithful? Or vice versa? The image is apt, for we are told that the Church is the bride of Christ, and it is no secret that the people who are the Church have, like Israel of old, often gone a-whoring. But also like Israel of old, she is still the people of God. Through Scripture, councils, and the Magisterium she has taught truly, although her children, in positions high and low, have not always been faithful to her teaching. There is development of doctrine, and there will be until the end of time. But there is neither change nor contradiction of doctrine. Where others claim to see change or contradiction, I see development and refinement with a vision transformed by love. I, too, can construe such development as change and contradiction. It is easy to do. I choose to view it as Spirit-guided development and refinement. I accept responsibility for that choice. The apostolic leadership of the Church has been given the authority to judge. I choose to obey.

Some Historical Roots of Scripture Alone

Here is part of an enlighting article I read over a Pontifications. Check out the link for the full article.




Somehow this changed in the shift from traditional society to modern. We see it already in the Peasants’ Revolts of the late Middle Ages. One of the consistent and most urgent targets of peasant mobs when they sacked monasteries or castles was the archives, in order to burn the documents which established the monks’ or the princes’ claims to ownership of the peasant holdings, hence their claims to annual income in money or produce from the peasants, their claims to obligatory labor services and so forth. Notice what has happened here. In the past, after such a sacking, the monks or the prince would simply have reasserted their claims and would have won their case if they were considered credible. Ancient custom dominated and was adjudicated by the collective memory. The princes, the monks, the barons had the upper hand, the greater claim to credibility but they had to refute counterclaims. By the late Middle Ages, for a variety of reasons, the peasants felt confident enough in their status (partly the result of inflation and scarcity of labor after the Great Plague that added up to increased economic power in the hands of peasants vis-a-vis an increasingly impoverished nobility and monastic network) to think that, if they could just destroy the written documents, they could assert their freedom from rents and duties and have a chance of carrying the day.
Other factors are involved. The Renaissance scholars were engaged in an archaeologizing approach to history, to the past. For whatever reasons, the immediate past had come to represent decline and decrepitude while the distant past, the Glorious Roman antiquity, promised renewal, revival, renascence. So they pored over ancient texts (having little direct, organic linkage to their ancient Roman past) and reconstructed the “Truth” about the ancient heritage. Of course, it bore the marks of their own locus in history, their own predilections and assumptions. But they didn’t know that. In the process, the written text became more important than the living, organic memory–because they either no longer had access to the living traditing of that memory or longer trusted such living bearers of that memory as they did have access to.
Coupled with this was the steady spread of Roman civil law which, unlike common law, depended on codification and written texts more than collective memory. In a world in which ancient custom, living memory is up for grabs; in a world in which great conflict brews over the heritage of the distant past, an easy but in the long term fateful shortcut is to appeal to written texts–if you are in power and therefore get to determine the meaning of the written texts. If you can discredit the living bearers of a tradition who are waning in influence or power, who seem down-at-the-heels and disreputable, then you can introduce a constitution or a set of Scriptures as, in themselves, the more authoritative.