Seventh-day Adventist to Roman Catholic

Are We Really That Different? Part II

2009-07-13T18:43:00.016-06:00

For the record, I am not becoming Protestant. :-p

Yesterday's quote was from the "Annex to the Official Common Statement" (paragraph C) on the doctrine of Justification--a statement approved by the CDF, and blessed by Pope John Paul II. And yes, it is a quite startling document, not least for explicitly agreeing with Lutherans that one can say justification takes place "by faith alone" (an affirmation of which even few Catholics are aware, as evinced by the confusion of some Catholics at my post).

When released, it represented a milestone in the struggle of Catholics and Protestants to understand one another. It demonstrates the potential of the Catholic Church to recognize the legitimacy of certain (historically divisive) Protestant expressions, with qualifications. It is, to put it simply, a historic example of simply listening and understanding.

As should be rather obvious, most Protestants did not intend to spite James when they championed the formula "by faith alone." Rather, they hoped to authentically represent the teaching of Paul in Rom. 3:28; Tit. 3:5, where he indicates salvation comes by "faith" and "not because of any works." In turn, Protestants realized that when Catholics rejected sola fide, they did not do so in a scheme to reject the Bible and build an entire system of works righteousness. Rather, they were profoundly disturbed that Protestants championed a slogan that directly contradicted James' statement: "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

I believe you can sympathize with both parties.

The tension between faith and works, free grace and the demands of obedience, is hardly original to the Reformation; it virtually consumes the New Testament. No wonder scholars find it difficult to adequately reconcile various texts in the Bible that discuss this subject (e.g., Romans and James). Thousands of books have been written in that very pursuit. Words are used in different contexts, with different meanings, in ambiguous forms. In many ways, tensions and ambiguities within scripture itself very naturally developed into the heated debates of the sixteenth century. And yet, even at the height of the Reformation, every Catholic priest implored God in (still current) words of the Mass: "to us sinners, also, your servants, hoping in the multitude of your mercies. . . admit us, not considering our merit, but of your own free pardon, through Christ our Lord."

Is there a Christian would not recognize the entire, pure gospel in those words?

There are real differences, to be sure. Catholics will not find every Protestant expression of sola fide acceptable (e.g., "once saved always saved"), and Protestants will continue to question whether some Catholic beliefs undermine perfect faith in salvation in Christ's sacrifice alone (e.g., penance, treasury of merit, etc.). Obviously, our conversation is only beginning, and we may not find the consensus we ultimately seek.

But, can we concede we are both committed to the same Bible? Can we recognize that we are both struggling--sincerely struggling--to faithfully represent the teachings of the whole Bible? Can we recognize the still honest Christianity in each other, and avoid claiming the other side is disingenuously "unbiblical?" And can we learn from the concerns of the other, to ensure our own view does greater justice to the whole and balance of scripture, as well as the legitimate concerns of other Christians?

It may be difficult, but we have everything to gain from that pursuit... not least, one another.

What I Believe

2009-07-13T11:19:00.003-06:00

Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works.

The Audacity of Pope

2009-07-13T00:32:00.000-06:00

Strong piece in the NY Times.

We Have Much to Learn

2009-07-12T17:58:00.011-06:00

The II Vatican Council stressed the fact that as Catholics, we must be able to learn from Protestants, precisely because they can enrich our own Church.

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all her bearings. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 4)

That last sentence is a key thought. Although the Catholic Church posesses all grace and truth, she may not fully appreciate, exhibit, or express it at a certain time. We can learn much about ourselves from the beautiful elements within Protestantism:

Thanks to ecumenism, our contemplation of 'the mighty works of God' (mirabilia Dei) has been enriched by new horizons, for which the Triune God calls us to give thanks: the knowledge that the Spirit is at work in other Christian Communities, the discovery of examples of holiness, the experience of the immense riches present in the communion of saints, and contact with unexpected dimensions of Christian commitment." (Ut Unim Sint 15)

I hope individual Catholics lay down triumphalism. The Catholic Church encourages us to learn from our non-Catholic brothers and sisters.

Prayer Request

2009-07-10T18:19:00.003-06:00

All,
I would like to request your prayers for my former manager (was laid off two weeks ago), today, he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, which has a prognosis of 2-5 years of life expectancy. Prior to that he will become slowly paralyzed, but his mental facilities will remain intact. He has a wife and two children, one who is in college, and one 11 year old boy. This is especially disturbing to me because of what a genuinely nice man he has always been. Please pray for him and his family and for healing if it is God's will.

Thanks
Brandon

Response: Ron du Preez on Col. 2:16, Part II

2009-07-10T09:08:00.003-06:00

This weekend I will be out of town, limiting my ability to blog. If you would like to read the rest of my response to du Preez on Col. 2, feel free to read its first draft (available as a PDF).

Also, feel free to leave your thoughts among the comments on the paper. I will get back to them as quickly as I can.

A Date with Predestiny

2009-07-10T01:47:00.008-06:00

John Calvin would have turned 500 today.

...It's time Reformed Christians finally break out some candles (*ahem* Catholic) to celebrate.

Response: Ron du Preez on Col. 2:16

2009-07-09T15:22:00.026-06:00

I recently read Ron du Preez' Judging the Sabbath: Discovering What Can't Be Found in Colossians 2:16. Published in 2008, many Adventists have since hailed this book as a definitive argument that the "Sabbath" in Col. 2:16 cannot be the seventh-day Sabbath (e.g.: [NPUC blog book review] [Justin Kim audio sermon]; look at these resources if you want a good summary of the book's argument). A pastor friend of mine who had read a draft of the book shared his excitement about the book with me several years ago. I read part of the manuscript then, and considered his argument.

It is time I release my response.

Cognate Passage

In his book, du Preez argues that the term "sabbath" in Hos. 2:11 (and consequently, Col 2:16, a text apparently adapting the language of Hos. 2:11) does not refer to the seventh-day Sabbath. I must disagree.

The passage closest to Hos. 2:11 in language is Ez. 45:17. All and precisely the same words appear in both texts ("feast. . .new moon. . . sabbath. . . all appointed times"), arranged in precisely the same order. (I will discuss the very minor differences between them in my next post.) However, unlike Hosea 2, Ezek. 45-46 actually elaborates upon this catalogue of terms. Subsequent verses actually describe the prince's offering of sacrifices on the sabbaths (46:3-4), the new moon (46:6), and feasts (45:21-25). The term "sabbaths" used in 45:17 (and 46:3) is clearly equivocal with "the sabbath day" (46:1,4,12), an expression du Preez notes unquestionably refers to the seventh day (p. 18-20). In 46:3, the same expression "sabbaths" appears beside "new moons"--a juxtaposition always used to refer to the weekly and monthly observances, respectively (and clearly evocative of 45:17, though reversed). Since all other references to a "sabbath" in these two chapters have the seventh day Sabbath in view, the "sabbath" in view in Ezek. 45:17 must also the seventh-day Sabbath.

Accordingly, I submit that the word "sabbath" in the combination of terms "feast. . .new moon. . . sabbath. . . all appointed times" refers to the seventh-day Sabbath. The only passage that elaborates upon this catalogue of observances (i.e., our best data) is too persuasive on this point. Consequently, Col. 2:16 also undoubtedly refers to the seventh-day Sabbath, if it is to be interpreted against Hos. 2:11.

In my next post, I will respond to du Preez' arguments for his view.

One World Government

2009-07-09T11:37:00.006-06:00

The latest encyclical to come out of the Vatican is being highly touted on blogs and in some news arena's as a call for a one world government. After having read over it, I don't see it, I just don't. I found this article especially helpful in pointing out the inconsistencies in the idea that the Vatican is calling for a one world government (as if one did not already exist).

July 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI's supposed call for a "new world order" or a "one-world government." These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope's latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.

The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations. Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world's news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ."

[Read the rest at LifeSiteNews.com]

Church Authority and the Bible

2009-07-08T18:13:00.018-06:00

In response to one well-meaning Catholic poster, I would like to make it clear: the Catholic Church emphatically rejects the idea that she is "over the Bible."

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. (II Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 10)

Furthermore, the fact that the Church canonized scripture is never suggested to be a sign that the Church has "authority over" the Bible. Canonization is a process of Spirit-guided discernment. The Church does not make scripture; God makes scripture, and the Church, in turn, recognizes it as such:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author, and were as such committed to the Church. (I Vatican Council, Session III:2, On Revelation)

For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. (II Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 11).

I hope these quotes help clarify the Church's views to well-meaning individuals on both sides. No doubt the Church claims authority in matters of canonizing and interpreting scripture, but no Catholic document ever remotely suggests this authority places her "over" scripture. Rather, this authority consists of the Church listening to the Word of God, and serving it. As Catholics, we must frame our views in fidelity to the thought and wording of the Church. There is no need to cause unnecessary offense and scandalize non-Catholics with claims the Church does not even make.

I believe Protestants can appreciate each of the statements I cite above.

Why No Post Today?

2009-07-06T19:48:00.001-06:00

I really like my last post and want your ideas on it before I move on. :-p

Are We Really That Different?

2009-07-04T18:59:00.015-06:00

A confession.

I believe the differences between Catholics and Protestants are not as great as they seem, and if all sides were sincere, rather than simply reactionary, our honest exploration would guide us to a closer (if still imperfect) consensus. Too often we disagree with each other because we feel we have to disagree. In fact, I notice we often have the same fundamental concerns, and perhaps even, ways of thinking.

Allow me to provide one example:

Sola Scriptura

Would Catholics accept a teaching as true if they knew the Bible actually contradicted or rejected it? If the Bible undeniably taught one thing, would the Church, recognizing that fact, feel free to blatantly teach another? Does the Church ever pick up a Bible and say, "this text is not true, because our tradition disagrees with it, and overrules it"? Never! Of course not. At the very least, Catholic teaching is perfectly faithful to a Catholic interpretation of scripture.

I think this is a point of agreement between Catholics and Protestants, and an enormous one. No doubt, we can talk all day about whether Catholic interpretations of scripture are correct (and do, on this blog). But stop for a moment and realize: we are all committed, Catholics and Protestants, to the claim that our beliefs are in harmony with scripture. Catholics even believe the extra-scriptural traditions and authorities they embrace are recognized by scripture itself (2 Thess. 2:15; Acts. 15, etc.). Ask any Catholic on this blog, and they will tell you: they do not believe in "sola scriptura" because they believe it is unscriptural in light of certain biblical texts. This is how we think. But notice: we are talking scripture, deeply concerned with what scripture teaches.

There's a flip side to this. As a Catholic, I admit Protestants have a legitimate concern when they ask: "is this particular belief or teaching congruent with scripture?" I respect that concern; it is a concern I share. I hope my Adventist friends realize this. As Catholics, we need to articulate this more explicitly.

No doubt, there is much more nuance in all this; there are outstanding differences to be sure. But can we recognize each other as sincere and truly Christian? Can we recognize that we have the same starting point, and the same fundamental concerns? Has anyone noticed that when we debate sola scriptura, we all turn to. . . the Bible?

Let's keep studying God's word together then. We all want to.

Review: "It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist"

2009-07-03T11:23:00.012-06:00

(This is a long post . . I am sorry.)

AToday online's homepage now offers a "review" (or moreso, bulleted pantsing) of Arthur and Teresa Beem's It's Okay Not to Be a Seventh-day Adventist. In response, I felt it was finally time I offered my review of the book, which I hope will be less dismissive than most Adventist treatments of it.

First, a little bit about me, the reviewer. Although a former Adventist, I still have a heart for Adventism. I believe Adventist theology is intriguing, original, and believe its views should not be dismissed lightly; they are rational and quite challenging (my life of blogging would be easier otherwise). I also absolutely affirm the sincerity of my Adventist brothers and sisters, leaders and laypeople. I believe Adventism is a relatively healthy faith to join, even if its eschatological imagination can invite fear and prejudice, and some elements within the church press a legalistic agenda. I honestly love Ellen White, harboring a cautious admiration and gratitude for her ministry; she nurtured my personal trust in Jesus Christ. When I think of Adventism, I have mixed emotions, ranging from my love of early Advent hymns, vegetarianism, foot-washing, "Steps to Christ," and "the Desire of Ages," to my disagreements with prophecy seminars and "the Great Controversy," and memories of distrust and hurt. However, I do not instinctively think of "fear" or "guilt" when I think of Adventism. Where these emotions arise in individual Adventists, I do not blame Adventist theology, but adults who misrepresent that theology to children.

"Joyless"

Against this background, it is easy to understand my initial uncertainties about this book. I never knew Adventism to be "fearful and joyless" (p. xv). The investigative doctrine was a positive doctrine in my memory; the Sabbath was a blessed experience; and Ellen White played an encouraging role in my life, even if my zeal to follow her "inspired" counsel led me in some legalistic directions (perhaps more my fault). Still, I recognize "fear" to be the experience of many who leave Adventism. I trust the Beem's are writing to those with a similarly wounded spiritual life, not me. (From what I understand, their memories of Adventism are pretty positive as well.) I merely want to avoid implicating Adventism for all the spiritual abuses its members often suffer. (I know some ex-Catholics are too ready to charge their distorted spiritual lives on the Catholic faith itself.) Again, I blame distortions of Adventism, and rarely Adventism itself.

Even still, Adventism itself often leaves a real and negative, emotional footprint in certain areas. I know the personal fear of walking away from the Sabbath and dietary laws, prejudice towards the Pope, and the struggle to respect other Christians in other faith communities, and the culture of hurt and fundamentalism some Adventist extremes can create. These are pivotal (often explicit) issues addressed in the book. As the Beems point out, other Christians do not recognize the unique emotional stress of leaving Adventism. The book's central theme ("it's okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist") is a word of encouragement I repeat on an almost weekly basis to individuals struggling with a call to embrace Catholic faith. They cannot imagine embracing those who eat pork, fail to see the Christianity in the average Catholic, and have lingering fears that they have been deceived by "antichrist." This is where the book shines: it is hopeful, encouraging, compassionate, and wise, to those who are struggling to leave Adventism. I would recommend it to anyone in need of that encouragement. Its concrete counsel, and the Beems' refreshing honesty--even humor--, make this book a needed read.

The sample dialogues at the end of several chapters, meant to help former Adventists articulate their new beliefs, are also very helpful. I like the book's emphasis on practical application.

If I could change one thing, I might have tried to make the treatment of Adventism and Ellen White in the book's earlier chapters less two dimensional. The book is legitimately critical, but sometimes seems to border on negative. When I left Adventism, I met priests who encouraged me to remember my former faith in positive ways, and use all I gained from it to enrich my Catholic faith. That optimism is such a welcome contrast to Adventist decision cards calling other Christians to leave "Babylon." Former Adventists have many fears and distrusts to overcome when attempting to embrace other Christians. Shedding the fears and hurts of Adventism is a helpful step on that road.

"The Untold History"

I have many thoughts on the book's extended critique of Adventist history and theology. Again, I believe Ellen White is a far more complex, and positive, figure than the book seems to portrays her, though her legacy confuses me. Her thought was ever evolving, however disturbing a fact for an individual who claimed to have spoken for decades with "inspired" authority.

Most Adventist websites have noted factual errors and weaknesses in the book's treatment of of Adventist history. Some of these criticisms are superficial; some are solid. Although the Beems admit they are not specialists in Adventist history, all legitimate criticisms of their research stand. (I will not recount those weaknesses here.) Individuals reading this book should be made aware of these weaknesses, which can be corrected by reading documented Adventist responses to the book. At the same time, one cannot dismiss the entire book in light of these weaknesses, as I see almost every Adventist reviewer do. The Beems make valid points, not least when they cite the problematic (and sometimes contradictory) claims and prophecies of Mrs. White. As in all reading, one must exercise discretion, critical thought, and be prepared to study these issues personally. And make no mistake: with the advent of the internet, almost all the sources needed for such research are at one's fingertips.

Theology

Arthur and Teresa wrote this book in their Protestant years, so I recognize a few differences between their viewpoint and my own. Nevertheless, both are Catholics now, and I am sure they too would alter a few elements in retrospect. The first signs of an emerging Catholic mindset are evident on certain pages (p. 213, 251, etc.). If anything, this is a strength of the book. Too often, ex-Adventists continue to disparage Catholicism, claiming it offers "a works-based righteousness" and "unbiblical doctrines" like Adventism once did. These criticisms flow from misunderstanding and, all too often, residual prejudice. By contrast, the book is able to portray Catholics as truly and intelligently Christian. That insight is too necessary for those leaving the Adventist church.

I may not agree with every aspect of the book's treatment of the Three Angels Messages, the Law, and the Sabbath, but I am largely satisfied. Obviously, these are exhaustive subjects, which I cannot begin to develop in this review. Even still, the book must be commended for its great detail.

Conclusion

No book will satisfy everyone, and its authors likely expected plenty of criticism and dissection. Nevertheless, with the qualifications I made throughout this review, I am comfortable recommending this book. There are many former Adventists who will gain an enormous blessing from it, and should definitely obtain a copy.

Most of all, I love the conversational tone of this book. I felt as if I were talking to Arthur and Teresa Beem personally around a coffee table, and was impressed by the sincerity, concern, and respect, they exude on every page. Far more relevant than any of the research in this book is the friendship it builds with the reader. No review I have yet read even begins to capture that aspect--by far the most important of the book. Above all, former Adventists need to know they are not alone; personal encouragement is vital on a spiritual journey, as the book itself affirms (p. 249). Arthur and Teresa make solid first companions on that journey.

Gotta Hand it to a Few Catholic Countries

2009-07-03T10:31:00.007-06:00

They may be rarer, they may be in the grip of secularism, but the most identifiably Catholic populations still stand tough:

At United Nations (UN) headquarters this week, the Obama administration continued its push for ever increasing access to legal abortion around the world. . . .
. . .
So controversial is the topic of “services” in the context of “reproductive health” that the usually impenetrable negotiating bloc of the 27 member European Union has imploded with Malta, Poland and Ireland splitting from their allies and joining the Holy See in opposing the measure. (Article)

Catholic societies in the world are still a blessing, to the unborn for one. Pray for them.

What is the Testing Truth of Revelation?

2009-07-01T19:38:00.013-06:00

The Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Yes, you heard right. One could argue the critical issue in the end time is the observation of the feast of Unleavened Bread from the various Old Testament allusions in Revelation:

1. The righteous are those who "keep the commandments of God" (Rev. 12:17). The observance of the "feast of Unleavened bread" is called a "commandment" of God in Ex 34:11,18.

2. The yearly observation of the feast of Unleavened Bread is, of course, the seal of God placed on the forehead and hand: "For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a festival to the Lord. Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen in your possession, and no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory. . . . It shall serve for you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead." Rev. 13 contains obvious and direct allusions to the command to observe the feast of Unleavened bread.

3. Rev. 12-14 form one unit. In ch. 12, "the woman fled into the wilderness," just as the Israelites did during the original feast of Unleavened bread (cf. Ex. 13:8). References to Jesus as "the Lamb" (Rev. 14) are based on Passover imagery. The plagues in Rev. 16:1-13 all directly allude to plagues that fell upon the Egyptians in the Exodus narrative. The water that fails to swallow the woman in Rev. 12:15,16 is a parody on the Red Sea crossing. The "new song" of Rev. 14:3 is reminiscent of the Song of Deborah during the Exodus.

4. Mention is made of "rest" in Rev. 14:11,13. Ex. 12:16 indicates the feast of Unleavened bread was a sabbath, a day of rest, upon which one could do no work. On their various sabbaths, the Israelites could not buy or sell either, as those who refuse the mark are forbidden to do in Rev. 13.

5. And yes, the critical issues in Rev. have to do with "worship" and "obedience." The observance of the feast of Unleavened bread is a matter of worship and obedience.

Yes, this is a parody. It is a reminder that just because an Old Testament celebration is alluded to, or cited, in Revelation, one cannot assume its literal observance is vital in, or championed by, the same book.

Unveiling

2009-06-29T15:35:00.007-06:00

I would like to introduce you all to catholicadventist.com: a website for Catholics who need help defending their faith.

Other contributers will be loading more content to the site over the next several days, so by all means, visit often. :-)

Peter and Paul

2009-06-29T12:15:00.013-06:00

Today is the feast of Peter and Paul, patrons of the Roman and Antiochian churches. Today's scripture readings in the Roman lectionary are worthwhile, as also those in the Byzantine lectionary. Also today, the Pope announced new carbon-date evidence supporting the ancient identification of the bones under St. Paul's basilica with those of the Apostle Paul. In the words of Ellen White:

In the providence of God, Peter was permitted to close his ministry in Rome, where his imprisonment was ordered by the emperor Nero about the time of Paul's final arrest. Thus the two veteran apostles, who for many years had been widely separated in their labors, were to bear their last witness for Christ in the world's metropolis, and upon its soil to shed their blood as the seed of a vast harvest of saints and martyrs. (Acts of the Apostles, 537)

Coincidentally, I received a poster of the popes in the mail today. Appropriate, no?

"May the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in whose power and authority we have confidence, intercede on our behalf to the Lord." (Urbi et Orbi blessing) . . .You know you want them to. ;-)

Pray Without Ceasing... I Mean That.

2009-06-28T00:19:00.003-06:00

I have friends who participate, to greater and lesser degrees, in a ministry called the "International House of Prayer" (IHOP). It's an awfully exciting ministry from all I have read, and "intense" by one description. The ministry believes in the power of 24/7 intercessory prayer and worship, and aims to be a continuous stream of incense rising before God (cf. Rev. 5:8), preparing the Church for the soon coming of Christ. I know the Spirit is moving powerfully in the hearts of those involved in this ministry.

I hope for the day when my own Church would be visibly characterized by such an experience. In more local ways, it is. In the Archdiocese of Atlanta, for instance, nine churches (including the Cathedral) experience 24/7 worship and prayer ("Perpetual Adoration"), where Catholics pour out love and praise and prayer before the body of Christ endlessly. Fun fact: the longest continuing prayer and worship in the United States today still continues at a Franciscan convent in Wisconsin (131 years and counting). Other communities in Europe emerged centuries earlier. Imagine all the generations who have participated! Is there any way to measure how much grace has immersed the world in response to the cries of God's awfully sleepy, but still awake, children? "Will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night?" (Lk. 18:7).

And in case we forget, as Catholics, we feel intensely the unending, ceaseless, tireless, invincible, cries of our sisters and brothers who have gone before us (Rev. 6:9-11; 2 Macc. 15:14), and of all the heavenly beings, who intercede for us (Rev. 5:8; 8:3; Mt. 18:10). In the Spirit, we ask them to pray for us, share our prayer requests, encourage each other, thank each other. We are one in Christ, and we have one heartbeat: the constant beat of intercessory prayer. It flows from angelic and human tongues, across life and death, heaven and earth, east and west. And it all reaches its peak in the DIVINE prayers of the one mediator, Jesus Christ, "who ever lives to intercede for us" (Heb. 7:25). At every moment, in every day, I am overwhelmed in a sea of billions and trillions of prayers. I have never known a second where a prayer was not being said for me, by name, day or night. My God hears, My God excites in, these prayers for me. He answers them.

Talk about 24/7 prayer.

I am so far from where God would have me; I am so weak. I have trouble praying for five minutes, let alone "without ceasing" (1 Thess. 2:15). From the bottom of my heart, I thank my brothers and sisters in this world, and in the other, for bearing me up with their unending prayers. And above all, I thank the Holy Spirit, who prays within me all the prayers I cannot begin to utter (Rom. 8:26). I am crushed in a monsoon of prayer; I am drowning in a vast ocean. It empties from above, crashes in from all sides, and even in spite of myself, breaks up my stony heart, and springs up within me. Ha, my God is too powerful; too incredible.

You are a Priest Forever

2009-06-27T01:26:00.000-06:00

Two of my friends were ordained priests this morning. The Mass was.... indescribable. Pray for them, and all priests, as they share Christ with the world.

When (Adventist) Boy Meets (Catholic) Girl

2009-06-26T17:06:00.019-06:00

When responding to my emails, the question I am most often asked is: "Should I continue to remain in a Catholic-Adventist dating relationship? Can we make it work? How do we make it work?" In the next several posts, I'd like to answer some of these questions.

There are certain interpersonal dynamics that could render any relationship impossible: discomfort with, fear of, or animosity towards, some aspect of the other person, deep-seated skepticism of the others' capacities, rivalry and contention between parties, stress of divided loyalties or conflicting responsibilities, the belief they have little to gain from the other, etc. (A good many divorcees could check off a few factors on that list.) Unfortunately, these are precisely the dynamics that can manifest themselves in an interfaith relationship, especially a Catholic-Adventist relationship. For instance, many Adventists fear Catholicism (childhood stories of martyrdom under a Sunday law), feel animosity or enmity towards it (GC 563 encourages Protestants to "abhor popery"), may be disturbed by its visible manifestations (rosaries, crucifixes), may question their partner's clarity of understanding or commitment to Bible truth, may strive over the education of children, may feel uncomfortable with their partner paying tithe to the Catholic Church, etc. They may also feel the Catholic party has nothing spiritually meaningful to share with, or teach, them. More often than not, all of the above may be true. In a culture of such distrust and division, even if both parties were of the same faith, it is difficult to see how such a relationship could survive.

I always tell of one instance in which I asked a former girlfriend, "Did you ever wonder whether in the end-times, under the Sunday Law, I would turn against you and kill you?"

"Absolutely." She responded.

Needless to say, so crippling a fear as death doesn't quite encourage a healthy relationship.

Now, there are Adventists whom a Catholic could successfully date: namely, those not prone to these fears and dynamics. More often than not, these Adventists simply do not share historic Adventist beliefs or attitudes towards the Catholic faith, at least not to the same degree as most Adventists (that is, they may be quite moderate or progressive in their Adventism, or they may have abandoned their Adventist identity by and large). Other times, they may simply tolerate certain elements in good faith that the Catholic party will eventually "come around" and "see the light." Both have their potential weaknesses. The former may lack a certain level of spiritual commitment more generally (a devout Catholic will want a spiritual spouse). The latter may eventually prove less tolerant or committed to the relationship when it is clear the Catholic party is still far from eventually "coming around."

For all these reasons, and after my experience in three such dating relationships, I honestly find it difficult to imagine a Catholic-Adventist dating relationship leading to an ultimate, happy, and healthy marriage. That's just me (and believe me, I tried... and tried... and tried). Still, I would not eliminate the possibility of exceptions to this rule. I believe it is far more important to treat these relationships on a case-by-case basis, than simply eliminate them against a stark, general standard. For those in such relationships, I would render prayer and encouragement long before I would express my doubts.

In any case, I find these relationships soon collapse on their own. Someone eventually pulls the trigger. No.. not the Sunday Law enforcement trigger... the other one.

Eternal Rest

2009-06-25T17:17:00.001-06:00

I've tried to pray for Michael Jackson at least once a month. I'll pray for him again.

Linkettes: 6|23|09

2009-06-23T22:31:00.008-06:00

1. As a former Adventist, I am proud Uriah Smith's failed automobile design is the first "worst car of all time."

2. As Lady Dragon shared, rumors that the purported Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia will be unveiled. [Translation]

3. Spectrum blog talks about Aquinas and Adventists.

4. Pray for the Maronite Patriarch.

Swimming the Tiber Against my Will, Part.... I Forget...VI?

2009-06-23T01:08:00.025-06:00

Haha, so it's been a while since I've kept up with this series. I am completing a very exciting project. In this drop of time, though, I would like to address an issue David raised. In many ways, my consideration of that issue made me more sympathetic to Rome several years ago:

"You said, as per the Catholic viewpoint, that the ecumenical councils were recognized as such only when the pope of Rome gave his approval of them. . . the Orthodox believe that a council only gets recognized as truly ecumenical after it has been accepted by the Church as a whole, and usually with the pronouncement of another "Church-wide" council years later"

David, I believe you are basically correct when representing the position of both churches.

Now, I think you can understand why Catholics believe the Orthodox definition leaves a but more to be desired in terms of authority. Remember, large sections of the Church do not accept such councils as Ephesus (Assyrians) and Chalcedon (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian). I am sure, from their perspective, "the Church as a whole" did not accept those councils. And I also suppose, from their perspective, those councils which later approved the council(s) they reject were not "Church-wide," seeing as they lacked their approval or even participation. (For the same reason, the Eastern Orthodox do not accept the "ecumenical councils" of Trent or Vatican II, for instance.) Also, if the pronouncement of an ecumenical council is necessary to confirm a previous ecumenical council, what of the final one of the 7 councils: II Nicaea? There is no obviously "ecumenical" council after that council to confirm it as "ecumenical."

From the West's perspective (and you can decide how you feel about this), there must be some nexus, centre, or touchstone of visible unity and authority within the Church. To be in full and visible communion with the Church, one must be in full and visible communion with [insert that nexus here]. The Church, so often fragmented, nearly yearns for such a nexus, lest it descend into a form of geographical relativism (Copts, Byzantines, Romans).

Catholics believe Rome--the first and head See of Christianity--is that nexus. As Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 CE) said, "the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head" (Letter 14).

I agree.

Now, avoid too romantic an impression. Never forget: Rome's acceptance of certain councils has a very muddled and lengthy history. Also, there are more general concerns: a couple of popes fell into material heresy (e.g., Pope Honorius' condemnation, approved by Pope Leo II); there have also been disputing claims to the papacy from rivals (popes and antipopes). In light of all these facts, let us remember Rome is not as clean a nexus as one would like, but in spite of these weaknesses, the Catholic Church is incredibly cohesive. Then again, the councils have quite a muddled history of their own. The Church is human; the Spirit must work under confusing circumstances. Somehow, though, we believe God led the Church to true doctrine, a recognition of the Bible, etc. At the end of the day, I trust God has a design for His Church--a design He partly realizes through her first See. And I cannot help but love and honor Rome, whose role has been so pivotal and positive in the Church's history. The council fathers certainly loved and honored Rome.

Again, I find it impossible to imagine the Church of the first (or any) millennium without Rome.

A Thought

2009-06-22T21:13:00.003-06:00

Ever wonder what Lady Dragon, Brandon, Hugo, and Fr. Jim looked like as Protestants?

Like, really... you ever tried to imagine it?

I stumbled across some Bible studies and evangelistic tracts I wrote as an Adventist teenager, and wanted to publish. They were in a box in the basement. There is no small irony in where my life is now.

In other news, my Vatican flag came in the mail.

Gratitude

2009-06-20T23:05:00.014-06:00

I want to thank Still and ant for the enormous contributions they have made to this blog. They have shown tremendous class in their responses to the Catholic/Orthodox in our community. They calmly and thoughtfully engage our views, explore the Bible with us, avoid talking down to us, do not act like they are "the voices of truth," are patient, avoid dismissive attitudes and conspiracism, etc. They are not here to preach at us or convince us how "obviously wrong" we are. I feel absolutely spoiled by them; they make the dialogue I try to foster on this blog so easy. Yes, we disagree, but I truly, truly desire to be more like them.

I also want to thank David, Michael, Alex, and Alan, whose influence keeps the tone of the blog incredibly polite, humble, and sincere. Understatement of the day: I am so impressed with them. They are heroes to me, haha, you all have no idea. I am so grateful that they field the comments; I am not well suited to it (please keep it up).

I know I keep the blog moving along with daily posts, but I truly believe you all are the heart and soul of this blog. I enjoy calm discussions where different views are shared. However, I get frustrated easily when I feel someone is trying to preach at me, dismisses what I believe, and radiates the message "you believe lies." I am not perfect; some of you see glimpses of my frustration, and yes, pride. Maybe for this reason, I am far better suited to writing essays, where I square off with an academic argument rather than a person. I hardly feel suited for a blog comment or forum.

And yet, ironically, I am a blogger. Three years ago, I was asked to help Brandon with his new blog. Sometime in that period, I became our blog's primary blogger (I still think of it as "Brandon's blog"; the vast majority of you, however, have at one time or another called this, "Hugo's blog"). No doubt the frequency of my posts is the reason this blog is far more Catholic than Adventist (we're working on that). I just thank God and all of you for keeping me going. And almost three years later, I am so proud of our community. I laugh with you all the time, and I truly consider all of you friends.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

In the comments, feel free to compliment each other. :-)