Tradition, Bible & Church
January 16, 2007 at 4:42 pm | Posted in Bible, Council of Trent, Holy Tradition, Jerusalem Bible, JRR Tolkien, Magisterium, Pope Paul III, Roman Catholicism, teaching authority of the Church, The Lord Of The Rings | 4 CommentsThe Jerusalem Bible’ by Frank A Hilario, 2007
How The Bible Came About
The image you see is that of our 15-year-old copy of The Jerusalem Bible that I just scanned with our half-year-old Epson Stylus CX3700 all-in-one (scanner, copier with enlarger & reducer, printer); I tore off the old plastic cover imperfectly and I liked the jagged design so I left the plastic on – it reflects on this topic.
Why do I mention the ages and other aspects of those two objects? Because one is of ancient origin and the other is of modern history. And because today must relate to yesterday. And because I want to introduce the fact that the years are important; as tradition is made up of years of theory and practice (even if the words ‘theory and practice’ are not used in discussing tradition) full essay
Merry Christmas?
December 22, 2006 at 1:02 pm | Posted in Catholics, Colors of Christmas, Ferdinand Blumentritt, Love, Maximo Viola, Protestants, Rizal's Christmas, Roman Catholicism | 1 Comment
Consequently, Merry Christmas!
The debate rages on to this day, more than 100 years after his martyrdom on 30 December 1896, as to whether Jose Rizal, national hero of the Philippines, did in fact renounce his Roman Catholicism and become a Protestant in effect, without being baptized? That’s a big question; this time, I just want to talk about Rizal’s Christmas in relation to Rizal’s Christ, when Rizal was merely drifting from Catholicism to Protestantism.
In his time, did Jose Rizal, emerging non-Catholic, celebrate Christmas? I thought he didn’t, until I checked the correspondence. I found two references to Christmas Day, and the two reveal much of Rizal’s idea of Christmas and of Christ. Apt image from CodenameShaider who captions it ‘Colors Of Christmas’ (flickr.com/). Rizal’s Christmas is as colorful as his life, except that his Christmas does not revolve around Christ as God. That takes color off my Christmas.
This is part of his letter of 24 December 1886 from Berlin to his friend Ferdinand Blumentritt in Leitmeritz:
A friend of mine from the Philippines (Dr Maximo Viola) arrived from Barcelona where he studied. He is studying German and wishes to stay nine or ten months in Berlin. We talk a great deal about you and your work and he wishes to meet you. I will spend Christmas with him and young Moret, who is sending you his Christmas greetings. Many thanks for your kind invitation. I should like to see a Christmas celebration with a Christmas tree, but the families who know me have invited me only for the New Year, either because they have no children or their children are already grown-ups. At home the whole family partake of a good soup at midnight; and the children decorate a Belen (Nativity scene) with the image of the Child Jesus, the animals etc. This season is the most beautiful and pleasant we have in the Philippines. (Translation by Encarnacion Alzona, whose ‘big’ I changed to ‘grown-ups.’ I don’t know about ‘a good soup’ at midnight – I would think ‘a good snack’ is better, but I don’t have the original Spanish in front of me to make my own translation.)
Rizal has been invited by Blumentritt to visit him and, therefore, Austria. Eventually, soon after the Noli Me Tangere comes off the press in March 1887 (as he writes his friend, he in fact is now writing the manuscript of that book), in May 1887 Rizal and Viola will go visit Blumentritt. But this Christmas time before that, Rizal writes that he is longing to be with a family around a Christmas tree, and no family has invited him to celebrate Christmas as part of the family. Actually, he is longing to be with a family, period. Any family. The Rizals are as close a family as you can get, and he misses the fuss and attention. In any case, he is the darling of the Rizals. He is their genius of a man.
He does not mention a Christmas tree in Calamba; he does mention a Belén, which is the Spanish word for the Nativity scene, which every Roman Catholic in the Philippines knows means Christmas in all its senses. He speaks of that with love: ‘This season is the most beautiful and pleasant we have in the Philippines.’ If you are not a Filipino, I tell you it is as Rizal describes it. I’m talking of the countryside. Christmas in the City is too commercial now, even in the Philippines. That’s the Protestant Ethic.
On another Christmas Eve, in 1888, he again writes his friend, this time from London:
Only last night at eight o’clock, I returned here from a trip to Spain for a period of twelve days. I left so suddenly that I had no time to write you. Last night I received many letters, but I will answer yours first.
That shows they are more than friends in fact – They are soul brothers. It’s almost Christmas Day, and his first thoughts are that of his friend, and then his family. He writes a little of his story and history:
Today is Christmas Eve. This is the feast that I like to celebrate best. It reminds me of the many happy days not only of my childhood but also of history.
Is this the Roman Catholic Jose Rizal as his teachers and friends at the Ateneo and of Calamba, Laguna, as his mother Teodora knew him? Not anymore. He is intellectualizing. If you really believe, you don’t intellectualize; if you intellectualize, you don’t really believe:
Whether Christ was born or not exactly on this day, I don’t know; but chronological accuracy has nothing to do with tonight’s event. A grand genius had been born who preached truth and love; who suffered because of his mission, but on account of his sufferings, the world has become better, if not saved. Only it gives me nausea to see how some persons abuse his name to commit numerous crimes. If he is in heaven, he will certainly protest! Consequently, Merry Christmas! Let us celebrate the anniversary of the birth of a Divine Man!
‘… if not saved.’ ‘If he is in heaven …’ Two big ifs. Rizal is not willing to say that by the teachings of Christ the world has been saved. Not necessarily Savior, Christ is a genius of a man, a divine man, but a man nonetheless. As in man in the New Age.
‘… who suffered because of his mission, but on account of his sufferings, the world has become better, if not saved.’ Rizal must be thinking of his own mission – which is ‘to make men worthy,’ as he tells Fr Sanchez (letter of 2 February 1890 to Blumentritt) – and he may as well be predicting his own suffering.
‘Only it gives me nausea to see how some persons abuse his name to commit numerous crimes.’ Remember Rizal, now a non-Catholic, is writing to his friend, a Catholic. He is accusing the friars of abusing their authority, the whole Church for making money out of believers. ‘If he is in heaven, he will certainly protest!’ I’m not protesting. I’m only saying Rizal is thereby equating Roman Catholicism with the abuses of Roman Catholics, priests especially. That is like equating the apostleship of Jesus Christ with that of his worst apostle, Judas, who betrayed his master or, with that of his ‘best’ apostle, Peter, who denied him 3 times, on the night he was betrayed, remember?
Whether the baby Jesus who became Christ was born exactly on the 25th of December some 2000 years ago is beside the point, yes. He preached truth and love, yes. That is the point: truth and love, truth with love. Truth alone is not enough. Science claims the truth – that is not enough. Without love, truth is nothing. Even if science claims love, what is the basis of that love? Man’s reason. It cannot be higher than that of mere animals (who, Science says, is one of them), of mere man, mortal man. If your basis of love is God, then I love you! Three things remain, these three: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of this is love.
The thinking, rationalizing Rizal is not saying Christ is God; he is not saying Christ is God-Man; he is only willing to say ‘a grand genius’ and ‘Divine Man’ – not Christ as a member of the Holy Trinity, 3 persons in 1 God or Godhead. It is clear to me that he is putting his Reason above his Faith.
I believe that like oil and water, Reason and Faith don’t mix. Reason, otherwise called Science, otherwise called Logic, otherwise called Philosophy, which is belief in Man, cannot co-exist with Faith, otherwise called Religion, which is belief in God, who is greater than all men and all geniuses and all logicians and all philosophers combined, to say the least. Science calls itself the only mirror of Truth; it denies that Faith is another way of looking at, mirroring Truth. What is the basis for that denial? Science itself; Science is its own witness that Science is right! The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in our logic. Who created the stars? Not God but the Big Bang. Who is the Big Bang? Something or other.
Let Augustus be my Christmas gift to you. Christ was born in his time and under his empire.
Rizal is gifting his friend with a book or a painting or piece of sculpture called Augustus. Augustus was probably a book, but remember, Rizal can paint and sculpt. At least, Rizal is saying there that Christ was born, which means he as man is not denying the birth of Christ, but which he denies is God. Nowhere do I read that Blumentritt the ever-loyal Catholic ever complains that Rizal protests too much against the Catholic Church – a true friend.
Me? I cannot celebrate Christmas fully if I don’t believe that Jesus Christ is God, fully, mysteriously. Consequently, Merry Christmas! Instead of cerebrating, celebrate life!
Not an independent thinker
December 12, 2006 at 10:13 am | Posted in 4th century, beliefs, Book of Mark, cause, coconut, collective good, creative good, creator, fables, faith, fortune tellers, God, golden age of legends, Holy Bible, mystic storytellers, superstitions, worship | Leave a comment
Not An Independent Thinker
Hello Anyone,
I’m reprinting below an email (10 Dec 2006) from RG to AO, who is a good friend of mine – and the topic is me and what I know, but more about what I don’t know about worship/God. It’s really reason versus faith, that’s why I put it here. I am going to reply to it later; meanwhile, you may want to react to it on your own right now. The original was really allcaps; I decided to copy and paste it (it was copy-furnished to me by AO) because, of course, RG is of the old school and allcaps was an easy way of emphasizing your points – in this case, everything is emphasized and therefore important. Among other things, he says I’m ‘not an independent thinker.’
Apt image from Terri Lynn who captions it ‘Throes Of Worship 7’ (flickr.com/), which means it’s part of a series of photographs. (If you want to view the series – looks good – visit her at http://flickr.com/photos/terri_lynn/.) Hers is the face of a believer, a worshipper. When I saw it, I was immediately enamored with it, which I think in a way describes the object of worship: an instant innamorata. You don’t think, you don’t reason – you just believe, you just worship, you just wonder.
Frank
ACO,
BETWEEN YOU AND ME, I THINK FRANK IS AN INDOCTRINEE OF THE COLONIZING FRIARS. NOT AN INDEPENDENT THINKER. I RESPECT HIS BELIEFS.
HE HAS NOT READ MUCH OF HOW THE HOLY BIBLE WAS FORMULATED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING THE 4TH CENTURY, FROM ANCIENT HOLY SCRIPTURES WRITTEN BY MORAL ACTIVISTS, APOSTLES, PROPHETS, WRITTEN DECADES AFTER THE INCIDENTS AND EVENTS ACTUALLY HAPPENED, AND WAS CARRIED ON AS SPOKEN SCRIPTURES UNTIL THESE COULD BE WRITTEN – DURING THE ANCIENT STAGES OF OUR HUMAN CULTURE IN THE ANCIENT TIMES, IN OUR GOLDEN AGE OF LEGENDS, FABLES, SUPERSTITIONS, WITCHCRAFT, FORTUNE TELLERS, AND MYSTIC STORY TELLERS.
THE BOOK OF MARK, THE FIRST BOOK, WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 60 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST. HOW AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE COULD IT BE? THIS DISSERTATION AND MESSAGE BY THE APOSTLE. IT IS BLIND FAITH THAT WE BELIEVE, NOT COMMON SENSE
AND. LOGIC OF REASON.
THE HOLY BIBLE WAS FORMULATED FOR MUNDANE MOTIVES, TO BUILD A FOLLOWING BY THE ORGANIZERS FOR INFLUENCE, AUTHORITY AND POWER, AND GATHER THE MATERIAL GIFTS TO A MYSTICAL GOD. A GOD WITH A DUAL PERSONALITY OF LOVE AND WRATH, WHO WILL REWARD OBEDIENT SOULS TO A MYSTICAL HEAVEN OF ETERNAL LIFE AND HAPPINESS, WITHOUT SATIATION; AND TO LAKES OF ETERNAL FIRE IN HELL FOR THE WICKED AND DISOBEDIENT, FOR ETERNAL SUFFERING, PERDITION AND DAMNATION, AND TORTURED BY DEVILS. THIS IS TO SCARE US INTO WORSHIP OF AN ANGERED GOD, AND APPEASE HIM WITH GIFTS.
OUR INSTINCTS AND INTUITION KNOW THAT THERE IS ORDER IN NATURE AND THE UNIVERSE, (THAT EMANATE IN OUR SOCIAL ORDER AND CULTURE) WITH LAWS AND VALUES TO MAINTAIN THIS ORDER, AND THESE DO NOT HAPPEN AND EXIST WITHOUT A CAUSE. AND WE BELIEVE IN A CAUSE-CREATOR-GOD, AND ARE OUR CORE BELIEFS THAT HAS BEEN EXPLOITED BY CULT RELIGIONS TO MAKE MONEY IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD FOR THE GIFTS IT BRINGS.
WHAT ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? BUT DERIVATIONS BY APOSTLES DURING THE ANCIENT TIMES, FROM THE VALUES OF OUR HUMAN FAMILY, LOOKING UNSELFISHLY AMONG ONE ANOTHER FOR COLLECTIVE CREATIVE GOOD, SHARING, CARING, AND LOVING ONE ANOTHER, AND THESE VALUES BEING EXTENDED TO THE LEVEL OF OUR SOCIAL ORDER AND CULTURE, AND TO NATURE THAT IS THE HANDIWORK OF GOD. TO INTERACT AND LIVE WITH EACH OTHER, AMONG ONE ANOTHER, IN ALTRUISTIC COLLECTIVE CREATIVE GOOD, FOR OUR ENDURING WELFARE AND SURVIVAL INTO THE FUTURE IN OUR SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF NATURE AND CREATION.
WE CAN ATTUNE ON OUR OWN, WITH OUR CAUSE-CREATOR-GOD. NOT IN THE PAGAN IDLE IDOL WORSHIP OF A MYSTICAL GOD, CONJURED IN VISIONS, DELUSIONS AND HALLUCINATIONS OF HUMAN IMAGINATION, BY ENTERPRISING HOODWINKERS DURING OUR IGNOOOORANT ANCIENT TIMES, FOR THE GIFTS WORSHIP BRINGS. AND INDOCTRINATED INTO OUR HUMAN GENERATIONS FROM BIRTH TO DEATH, TO PROGRAM, CONTROL AND ENSLAVE OUR MINDS, HEARTS AND PASSION, IN THE BELIEF AND WORSHIP OF A MYSTICAL GOD, AND BECOME CAPTIVES TO THE CULTS, AND HAND OVER GIFTS OF LOVE TO GOD, TO THE CULTS.
IS THIS NOT A FAMILIAR RACKET IN OUR MODERN TIMES? SHALL WE CONTINUE TO CARRY OUR HEADS ON TOP OF OUR NECKS AND USE IT LIKE A COCONUT?
RG
The Most Powerful Symbol
November 22, 2006 at 11:48 pm | Posted in Bible, Catholics, Christ, Cross, Holy Cross, Holy Tradition, Magisterium, Sacred Tradition | Leave a commentThe Beauty Of The Cross
Did the Cross have any lesson to teach me? I wondered today, 22 November 2006. Was there more than what I already knew, that the Roman Catholic Church has the most dramatic, most symbolic and most powerful symbol of faith of all religions or churches in the world: The Cross? Now I know better, as Henry E Dosker tells me in this excerpt (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2006, bible-history.com/):
Cross. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion and of Christian civilization is found in this one word.
How can many Christian churches of the world ignore the Cross? They ignore it at their own risk.
Religious or not, the Cross is found all over the world all over the place. The cross can be traced back to the times of the Romans when free-standing crosses as monuments were used to commemorate victories in battles. It was the Roman Emperor Constantine who introduced the cross as the symbol for Christ’s victory over death (TJH 2006, claddaghstore.com/).
A most symbolic variety is the Huguenot Cross, which is in the form of a Maltese cross, that is, 4 isosceles triangles meeting at the center, with each triangle having 2 rounded points at the corners to make 8. The 8 signify the 8 Beatitudes in Matthew 5: 3-10. From the lowest triangle hangs a dove, symbolizing the Holy Spirit (Huguenot Society of South Africa, geocities.com/hugenotblad/).
Probably the best known award in Canada is the Victoria Cross, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1856, ‘for most conspicuous bravery or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy’ (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2003, vac.acc.gc.ca/). In Germany, the most famous award recognizing valor was the Iron Cross, instituted by King Frederick William III of Prussia who was at war against Napoleon of France (German U-Boat, 2006, uboataces.com/).
The Greek Cross, also called the St George Cross, is the logotype adopted by the Red Cross established as an international organization in 1863 at the Geneva Convention; it is also seen on the flags of Greece and Switzerland (symbols.com/).
Christianity has been recognized as the ‘religion of the Cross’ as some of the great monuments of Western civilization have been representations of the torture and murder of Christ on the Cross (Richard Viladesau, 2005, oup.com/us/). Viladesau’s book is in fact titled The Beauty Of The Cross, published by Oxford University). Beauty in suffering and death? I quote from the same source:
Despite the horror of the Crucifixion, we often find (the image) beautiful. The beauty of the Cross expresses the central paradox of Christian faith: the Cross of Christ’s execution is the symbol of God’s victory over death and sin. The Cross as an aesthetic object and as a means of devotion corresponds to the mystery of God’s wisdom and power manifest in suffering and apparent failure.
The Holy Cross, says Rev Fr Charles Joanides (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 2006, goarch.org/), is by Holy Tradition ‘transformative in nature and can make a difference in your life.’ Once we understand the story behind Christ’s Cross:
We develop a personal relationship with God which changes the way we see the world around us. Moreover, the blessed message behind this story not only has a direct, positive, transformative impact on us; it also has a blessed impact on our marriages, families and our efforts to parent our children.
In the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II, the Way of the Cross is very dear to his heart, rooted in his family tradition and in the pastoral life of the Church in his native country, Poland (Piero Marini, 2003, vatican.va/news_services/). In the Opening Prayer of the 2003 Way of the Cross, the Holy Father says:
With us too is the Blessed Virgin Mary. She stood on the hill of Golgotha as the Mother of the dying Son, as the Disciple of the Teacher of truth, as the new Eve standing beneath the tree of life, as the woman of sorrow, the companion of the ‘man of sorrows, acquainted with grief’ (Isaiah 53: 3), the Daughter of Adam, Our Sister, the Queen of Peace. As the Mother of Mercy, she bends over her children who still face dangers and exhaustion, to see their sufferings, to hear the cry arising from their afflictions, to bring them comfort and to renew their hope of peace.
Ultimately, the Holy Cross is the symbol of Peace.
One, Two, Trinity
November 13, 2006 at 9:25 pm | Posted in Bible, Bible alone, Catholics, Christ, faith, Father & Son & Holy Spirit, God, Holy Trinity, Imprimatur, Jesus, Magisterium, Nihil obstat, Protestants, Sacred Tradition, Sola scriptura, Teaching authority | 1 Comment
One, Two, Trinity
And then there were three. They were seen in Sacred Tradition first, seen in the teaching authority of the undivided Church next, seen in the Bible last. Which Church was that? The Roman Catholic Church.
The Three Witnesses Of The Catholic Church
To the Protestants, the Bible is enough. Sola scriptura, the Scripture alone is the basis of what is good, what is pleasing, what is perfect (I’m borrowing from Romans 12). They are denying themselves what the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) refers to as ‘The splendor of truth.’ It’s a choice they have made with their Godfather, Martin Luther, starting on the Halloween of 1517 (October 31) when he nailed his 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenberg, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of ‘heresy upon heresy’ (2003, greatsite.com/). He was given a chance to recant, but he refused; he was excommunicated in 1521, or 4 years later. He was a brave man living up to his brave words. The protestor is always right.
The Protestants accept the Trinity and defend it solely by the Scripture. I don’t understand that because, from my readings, the doctrine of the Trinity is only vaguely mentioned in the Bible. The Roman Catholics have a better idea; they support that doctrine by the Bible plus Sacred Tradition plus the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church. I call these The Three Witnesses of the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther would not accept the Magisterium (that is to say, the Majesty) of the Church; out of that rejection came his protest, and so the Protestant Church was born; likewise, the Eastern Orthodox would not, and they too separated from the Mother Church. They all came from the Catholic Church, while today’s Protestant churches are branches of the original Protestant branches (Catholic Answers, 1996, catholic.com/). The prodigal daughters got their Bibles from the mother; now they deny the authority of their mother to proclaim the truth. The nihil obstat (nothing obstructs) and imprimatur (let it be printed) in Catholic publications are an exercise of the teaching authority of the Church, of its exclusive role as interpreter of the truth. They always go together; indicating that the publication contains nothing objectionable in terms of faith and morals (Catholics United for the Faith, 2006, cuf.org/). The mother is always right.
The Bible itself declares the eminent value of Sacred Tradition while the Protestants deny such value. Mario Derksen (cathinsight.com/) points out that, for instance, Paul told the Thessalonians to hold fast to his preachings (2 Thessalonians 2: 15), which could not have referred to any part of the Bible because at the time of writing there was no Bible yet. The Bible is always right.
But take heart, brother Catholics. Mark Shea writes (1999, envoymagazine.com/):
Something great is happening. Many of our evangelical brothers and sisters are beginning to appreciate the ancient Catholic teaching that Sacred Scripture is the written portion, not the totality, of Sacred Tradition given us by the Apostles with the authority of Christ himself.
The Protestants are not always right; now they are beginning to understand.
They have a lot to catch up with. The Roman Catholics have long believed in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity based on three sources of truth: (1) the Bible, (2) Sacred Tradition, and (3) the Magisterium (Catholic Answers, 1996). Not necessarily in that order – in fact, as far as I know, the three are of equal importance; The Three Witnesses assert the same divine truth. For instance, ‘the Bible alone’ was not part of the belief in the early Church; it is not Sacred Tradition. Only by Sacred Tradition do we know, for instance, that John is the ‘beloved disciple’ since the identity is not mentioned in the Bible itself (Steven Kellmeyer, 2000, catholiceducation.org/). Chris Tesch points out that according to the Bible (1 Timothy 3: 15), it is the Church and not the Bible that is the ‘pillar of truth’ (1997, catscans.com/).
And now, let us discuss some details of the testimony of The Three Witnesses on the matter of the Holy Trinity.
One, Trinity from Sacred Tradition
The Doctrine of the Trinity did not originate with the Bible; it was Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers writing in the 3rd century, who first coined the term trinitas (trinity) and who, in doing that, clarified the ‘mystery of the divine economy … which of the unity makes a trinity, placing the three in order not of quality but of sequence, difference not in substance but in aspect, not in power but in manifestation’ (Cher-El L Hagensick, 2004, heraldmag.org/). Inspired, Tertullian saw three persons in one God, and that became part of Sacred Tradition.
The Bible itself several times refers to the need to cling to Apostolic Tradition, which of course is not in the Bible (Catholic Answers). The Bible is not enough!
Based on early Christian writings, Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome (Papa or Pope) ‘continued to exercise Peter’s ministry in the Church’ (Catholic Answers, 1996).
The Catholic text that contains the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 AD and expanded at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit (Ken Collins, 1995, kencollins.com/). The Nicene Creed runs thus (spurgeon.org/):
The Nicene Creed
(modern version)
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Even the Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity and yet the concept does not come from the Bible, that is, the word ‘Trinity’ is not even in the Bible. Trinity is the witness of Sacred Tradition.
Two, Trinity from the Bible
Still, in his article on the Trinity for whose support some may be found in the Bible,’ Fr Paul Kaiparambadan writes (‘Trinity in the Bible,’ Know The Truth, 2006, Maiden Issue, San Bartholomew Parish, Malabon City, the Philippines) that the Old Testament refers to God as ‘persons’ thus (my excerpts):
Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness’ (Genesis 1: 26).
The Bible says to us that there are three that bear witness in heaven, The Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost (1 John 5: 7). The Bible reveals ‘God has a Son’ (Proverbs 30: 4, ‘who knows the name of God and the name of His Son!’
God is defined as Love in the Bible. If God is a single individual, this definition becomes invalid as He could never give and experience love. CS Lewis, the famous thinker, says: ‘If God was a single person, then, before the world was made, he was not love.’
John 15: 26: ‘But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send unto you, from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me.’
The Holy Spirit is explicitly called God in the Bible as a Divine Person in union with the Father and the Son. 2 Corinthians 3: 17-18 – ‘Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.’
Peter called the Holy Spirit God. Acts 5: 3ff – ‘Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money … What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.’
There is a beautiful verse from 1 Corinthians that Fr Paul points out by which St Paul explains the mystery of what we now refer to as the Holy Trinity. The verse runs thus:
There are different kinds of gifts but the same Spirit;
there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord;
there are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
In the Old Testament, the creation of woman from man reflects, and for now we see, darkly, the Trinity thus (Colin Donovan STL, EWTN.com/):
The collective term man, for example, is both a philosophically and theologically appropriate term for the human race. Just as there is a certain precedence within the Trinity, by which the Father is God, the Son is God by generation and the Holy Spirit is God by spiration, Sacred Scripture reveals that an image of this Trinity of equal Persons in God is reflected in the creation of woman from man. Adam (which means man) is a man, Eve is a man (since she shares his nature), and each of their descendants is a man. This expresses equality, NOT inequality as feminists claim.
Three, Trinity from the Magisterium
The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church represented by the Pope and expressed most completely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Apostolic Constitution (it is available online at vatican.va/). The catechism teaches that:
The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the ‘mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God.’ To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
The doctrines of the Trinity and the divine/human nature of Christ were the main dogmas recognized by the councils of the undivided Church during the first millennium (White Robed Monks of St Benedict, 2000, whiterobedmonks.org/). This is the teaching authority of the undivided Church.
In his book An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Cardinal Newman discusses how it is that (John Shepard, 2005, northforest.org/):
Both Protestants and Catholics admit that doctrine has developed over the centuries. Even those Protestants who claim that they follow the exact teachings of the apostolic church (should be able to recognize) at least two obvious developments:
- There was no canon of New Testament Scripture in the apostolic era; it developed over time.
- The major Christian doctrines (such as the Trinity) are not merely restatements of Bible verses. These doctrines were discussed by the Church Fathers over hundreds of years, and were finally formulated at various Church Councils. These doctrinal statements are in words not literally copied from the Bible.
The image shown on this webpage is Giovanni Battista Tiepolo’s painting of ‘Pope St Clement Adoring The Trinity’ (Jeff Dugan, 2002, arttoheartweb.com/). In the painting, Pope Clement I (also known as Clement of Rome), is shown praying before a vision of the Holy Trinity. The Pope is the first of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ and his feast is celebrated 23 November; and according to Tertullian, writing in 199 AD, ‘the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St Peter’ and that St Jerome says that in his time ‘most of the Latins’ knew or believed that ‘Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle’ (Women for Faith & Family, 1999, wf-f.org/). Sacred Tradition mixed in with the Magisterium. Any questions?
The teaching authority of the Catholic Church is like this, as John Salza explains to David, apparently a Protestant, in an Internet dialogue (2006, scripturecatholic.com/):
The Bible didn’t just fall out of the sky. God did not give us (the books that make the Bible and) an inspired table of contents. There were 50 different ‘gospels’ floating around Judea during the first centuries of the Church. It took an authority to determine what was inspired and what was not inspired. God gave this authority to the Church, just like He gave the same Church the authority to define the dogmas of God and Christ which even you believe (the Trinity, dogmas on Christology).
In our time, the Beloved John Paul II ‘showed his great honor and love for the Holy Trinity as Pope by dedicating 3 consecutive years to the Holy Trinity, in preparation for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, as follows (The Work of God, theworkofgod.org/):
1997, dedicated to Jesus Christ (faith)
1998, dedicated to the Holy Spirit (hope)
1999, dedicated to God the Father (charity).
Teaching that Faith plus Hope plus Charity merging and emerging as one reflects the Holy Trinity, that’s John Paul II exercising the teaching authority of the Church.
Not only the Catholics but the Protestants also believe in the Trinity. Now, there is a danger in that, as Bob Stanley explains (1995, columbia.edu/):
Some people will say, ‘If it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it.’ Ask them if they believe in the Holy Trinity. If they say ‘yes, of course,’ then say, ‘OK. then find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible.’ They can’t find it because that word is not in the Bible. How then can anyone who believes in the Holy Trinity say, ‘Sola Scriptura (only the Bible)?’
That is why we need the Church as authority. Since the word ‘Trinity’ itself is not found in the Bible, all the more reason to turn to a teaching authority that has existed since the beginning of our time.
Without a teaching authority, who will interpret the Bible? The Pontifical Biblical Commission reports to John Paul II (PBC, 1993, bible-researcher.com/):
The patristic and conciliar teaching about the Trinity expresses the fuller sense of the teaching of the New Testament regarding God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In fact, the Protestants do have a teaching authority whom they turn to for interpreting the Bible, and everyone knows him; his name is Everybody. Each one of them is the infallible interpreter of truth. Each one of them is a Pope all by himself, declaring himself the Pope of his church, declaring his interpretation better or more truthful than the others, and the members of his church believe him.
No nihil obstat and no imprimatur here, but I do declare. The Bible and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are The Three Holy Witnesses of the Catholic Church, for those who do think the past is part of the answer to the problems of the present. Father & Son & Holy Spirit: The Holy Trinity for all those who do not think highly of themselves.
What I know, What I Believe
November 7, 2006 at 4:16 pm | Posted in Bible, Catholics, Christ, faith, God, Holy Tradition, Jesus, Magisterium, Pope, Protestants, Sacred Tradition, tradition | Leave a commentThis is my faith.
Did you see the maiden issue of the newsletter published by the San Bartholomew Parish of Malabon City (Manila)? It’s called Know The Truth and underneath the title is this tagline: ‘A publication to defend the Catholic faith.’ Of course the Catholic Church has to defend itself. You are a Catholic, aren’t you?
Not that I go to mass every Sunday, but yes.
It’s a very different kind of newsletter. No editor, but judging from the article on the inside back page titled ‘I write this … that you may know …’ by Fr Paul Kaiparambadan, then he must be the Editor. Not a Filipino, I guess, by the name.
Maybe not. And what did he write?
I will read to you the very first paragraph on page 1 of the article, ‘The Bible proclaims: Jesus is God.’ Here it is:
‘Jews crucified him for blasphemy. Being a man you make yourself God’ (John 10) was his crime. But the Church he established boldly proclaimed he is the Living God. Thousands of them became martyrs just for that cause. Roman Caesars and Neros worked hard to kill his church, but Rome became its capital. Now new ‘churches’ have re-emerged here with old dreams. Iglesia Ni Cristo spends millions in TV shows to propagate ‘Jesus is not God. He is only a man. The Church he established is dead. The Catholic Church is an apostasied Church.’ They try their best to prove it from the Bible! All tricks are used to confuse Catholics. Hundreds of them are already trapped in their propaganda. Many are wounded and pained because of harsh criticisms against the Catholic faith. What is the truth? What does the Bible really say about Jesus?
‘Apostasied’ means abandoned. They are probably thinking of so many Roman Catholics converting out. The Iglesia don’t think that Christ is God. Don’t forget that the Iglesia was founded by Felix Manalo in 1914. That’s not a very old church, is it? No tradition at all. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church of antiquity. About Christ as God, well, the New Testament says 30 times that Jesus is the ‘Son of Man’ and 30 times that he is the ‘Son of God.’ That’s what the Bible says.
Is that enough proof?
No. There is also the papal testimony. Where the Pope mentions Jesus or Christ, the Pope states or implies that he is God (God the Son).
Why do you believe in the papal bull? He he. How can the Pope be sure that Christ is God? You Catholics believe too much in the Pope.
We Catholics believe in the teaching authority of the Pope, in the Magisterium.
Oh. Suppose the Pope is wrong?
In a doctrine or dogma, he can’t be wrong. In any case, we don’t stop at what the Bible says, we don’t stop at what the Pope says. We Catholics have a third witness.
And what is that?
Tradition. What the great writers said, what the great theologians, the would-be saints said. What does tradition say about Jesus being/not being God? Ask the old folks. What they know or believe is local tradition. Read history. Even Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, believed the Jesus Christ is God. That’s also tradition. A culture cannot survive without tradition. Image from Jie Jun AEP CA1 who captions it simply ‘Tradition’ (flickr.com/). Victorian is tradition, dating back to Queen Victoria of Britain (19th century).
But the Bible is the sole authority of the truth, isn’t it?
That’s what the Protestants assert: Sola scriptura – the Scriptures only, the Bible only. We Catholics assert the truth as established by the Bible plus by the Magisterium plus by tradition. No more, no less. Three witnesses.
I didn’t know that!
I assure you millions of Catholics didn’t know that either.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
THE WONKER 