Mustard Seeds and Leaven

Gospel Lk 13:18-21

Jesus said, “What is the Kingdom of God like?
To what can I compare it?
It is like a mustard seed that a man took and planted in the garden.
When it was fully grown, it became a large bush
and the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches.”

Again he said, “To what shall I compare the Kingdom of God?
It is like yeast that a woman took
and mixed in with three measures of wheat flour
until the whole batch of dough was leavened.”

This is part of the daily Mass readings from, well, today. Msgn. Vlaun gave a lovely devotional though about this passage. You can find it at the UCCB website under their Daily Reflections Video page. See the video for 2015-10-27. 

The mustard seed changes our lives and flavors us much like a tiny ingredient in a recipe can flavor the whole dish. The Kingdom of God is not tasted only in large things, but in the small things. The little kindnesses we show to one another like saying “thank you” or holding to door open for another or yielding to other drivers on the road. 

Notice, too, that the mustard seed and the leaven, though small in and of themselves, have the potential for greatness. 

The mustard seed produces a huge bush. 

The leaven changes everything it comes in contact with.

Both take some time to actualize  their full potential. 

More ancient commentators saw the birds as Christian virtues that live and grow in the Church and in the life of the believer. 

See the Aquinas Study Bible entry for Luke 13:18-22.

Why Catholic?

When I started to read what are called the early Church fathers, I saw some patterns.


1.  They all knew how to handle Scripture well. That showed me that they could be trusted to interpret God’s Word. This came especially clear to me in the homilies of St. John Chrysostom. They are surprisingly applicable to life today in the 21st Century. The same can be said of St. Augustine and others.

That gave me confidence that much of what I had learned in the church I grew up in and in all the Biblical studies I had done in my life was what Christians have always believed.

So, even if a person does not join the Catholic Church, it would be important I think to get to know some of these Church fathers through their writings which are still preserved for us.

What did Thomas, Chrysostom, and Augustine base their beliefs on?

MWF: Actually, go back and read something like St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the Gospel of John – and other of his commentaries – and see that the exegesis has been there for a long, long time.

OL guy:

You’re correct. Not only Thomas, but Chrysostom and Augustine as well.

What else is remarkable about them is that they don’t spend a lot of time appealing to “the church teaches.” They look to the Bible and aren’t afraid to read it. They don’t act as if they need an infallible interpreter to keep them from messing up the text.>>>>

Yes, and all three believed that Mary was sinless. Remember Augustine’s comments on Mary and Jesus’ words about “who is my mother?”

Remember, too, that Chrysostom understood the word “kecharitomene” to be a title for Mary. 

They all accepted the deuterocanonical books as the infallible Word of God as well. 

They all agreed as well on the meaning of the Eucharist and the meaning of the Communion of Saints. They all venerated the saints. Were they idolators?

None of them were cessationists. 

So, if they did not resort to saying “the Church teaches” in order to defend their beliefs, what did they base them on?

Old Life

Well, it’s kind of odd over there at Old Life. they get so grumpy when questioned very much. I really am not sure why they believe what they believe. Maybe that’s not easy for anyone to answer, really.

I guess the thing is they like to be the ones asking the questions of everyone else, but they don’t really like being questioned themselves.

That’s fine. It’s their blog. Why all the insults and sarcasm, though?  Maybe that’s just part of blog life.

TVD

Posted October 24, 2015 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

D. G. Hart
Posted October 24, 2015 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, then please explain the disagreement among the members of your Synod who have all that charism, papal supremacy, infallibility of scripture and magisterium.

We notice.

Of course you do. You’re desperately hoping Catholicism becomes as big a theological and ecclesiastical mess as your own religion [as though that would make your religion true].

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lesbian-Couple-Ordained-Jointly-in-Presbyterian-Church-Delaware-297184461.html

Calvinism has achieved more chaos in 500 years than the Catholic Church has in 2000. It must be disappointing to see your religion’s claims to any sort of ‘catholicism’ be so self-refuting.

All of Grace - Catholic faith and practice

"Listen: there was once a king sitting on his throne. Around Him stood great and wonderfully beautiful columns ornamented with ivory, bearing the banners of the king with great honor. Then it pleased the king to raise a small feather from the ground, and he commanded it to fly. The feather flew, not because of anything in itself but because the air bore it along. Thus am I, a feather on the breath of God."

- Hildegard of Bingen, Visionary

This quote and a brief bio of St. Hildegard of Bingen can be found at the website Biographical sketches of memorable Christians of the past. It is an Anglican website. 

Notice the phrase “not because of anything in itself.”  That is what Protestants also believe. Hildegard lived in the 12th Century, long before the Reformation. In fact, she was a reformer herself. 

The fact is that there have been many great reformers in the Church, but most of them have stayed inside the Church to reform her from the inside. I am not saying that non Catholic Christians have no place in God’s Kingdom. No, not at all. I am saying that many Protestants would be blessed to think outside the box. Take a look at Church history and see what a rich heritage of “by grace through faith”  God has deposited into His Church.  Check out what the Church teaches about grace and faith and the fact that apart from Him, we can do nothing.

Ephesians 2:8-9English Standard Version (ESV)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8,9  Catholic - 

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;^g

9it is not from works, so no one may boast.^h

Prayer

Basically prayer means that from the depths of my heart, God speaks to God. The Holy Spirit helps our spirit to pray. Hence we should say again and again, "Come, Holy Spirit, come and help me to pray.”

- Flocknote Catechism in a Year


I thought this was a good statement about the meaning of Romans 8:26, 27.

Romans 8:26-27English Standard Version (ESV)

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because[a] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

Prayer

Can we be sure that our prayers are heard?

Our prayers, which we offer in Jesus' name, go to the place where Jesus' prayers also went: to the heart of our heavenly Father. We can be sure of this if we trust Jesus. For Jesus has opened again for us the way to heaven, which had been barred by sin. Since Jesus is the way to God, Christians conclude their prayers with the phrase, "we ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord." (YOUCAT questions 494-495)>>>>>

Notice that Catholics believe our prayers are heard because Jesus has opened the way to heaven for us. 

The above paragraph should not pose any theological problems for Protestants. 

This is from the Flocknote daily emails about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a good resource for anyone who wants to know what the Church teaches. It may surprise non Catholic Christians how much we really do have in common. 

There is a lot said about the Catholic Church and her teachings. Why not go to the best summary of those teachings, the Catechism of the Catholic Church? 

Catechism in a Year

If you want to read the whole Catechism, it is available online from the Holy See.   It is beautifully written and explains in summarized form the teachings of the Church.  Non Catholic Christians may be pleasantly surprised to find out that we have a whole body of beliefs in common. 

You will be surprised as well to find out how the Bible supports the traditions of the Church. After all, Catholic Christians are Bible Christians. 

The Eucharist

Why should we thank God?

Everything that we are and have comes from God. Paul says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor 4:7). Being grateful to God, the giver of all good things, makes you happy. The greatest prayer of thanks is the "Eucharist" ("thanksgiving" in Greek) of Jesus, in which he takes bread and wine so as to offer in them to God all of creation, transformed. Whenever Christians give thanks, they are joining in Jesus' great prayer of thanksgiving. For we, too, are transformed and redeemed by Jesus, and so from the depths of our hearts we can be grateful and tell God this in a variety of ways.>>>>>>

This is from Flocknote’s daily delivery of The Catechism in a Year. 

Notice the meaning of the Eucharist. Jesus, by the offering of His body and blood on the cross, actually offered all of creation to God. 

He, the Creator, is now the Redeemer of the whole universe, and He offers it back to His Father as a sacrifice of praise. 

Think about that for awhile. 

Sometimes the criticism is raised that it is the Catholic Church that will not enter into communion with Protestants. That is partly true, because the Protestant concept of Communion is not the same as that found in the Church’s teaching about the Eucharist. 

There is nothing in the above statement, however, that a Protestant should disagree with. 

See, the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. 

Not Saying These are Good Arguments- Well, they are good arguments! I think that others make them better than I do is all.

I am not saying that I have the best arguments to defend Catholicism against Protestantism. Here are some that I found helpful for me as I have interacted with Protestants on this.


Argument 1. 
If there were no Catholic Church, there would be no Protestantism. 

Now, I suppose that could go either way, but here is why I think it favors Catholicism. It also favors the Orthodox Church, but I prefer Catholic. My ancestors split away from the Western Church, so it seems to me that the logical place for Protestants to return when they want to go home is the Catholic Church. Others have different ethnic backgrounds or they just like Orthodoxy better. They are basically the same Church.

My grandparent’s church on one side was Lutheran. On the other side, various Protestant including Presbyterian, Methodist, and others. The curious thing about my mother’s family was that her grand father was Irish Catholic. No one in the family knew that until he was on his deathbed and called for a priest. That shocked the mostly Methodist family, as you can imagine. Because of strong anti Catholic sentiment where they lived, he thought it more expedient to attend the local Methodist church with his family.

So, here are my arguments. No, I am not a brilliant theologian or scholar - just an Evangelical with many years of experience in full-time Christian work.  My weakness in scholarship will be evident, but the arguments have some validity anyway. Fine scholars and Catholic apologists make them much better than I do, of course.

Maybe my process - or journey as many like to say - will be of help to someone else. If nothing more, maybe someone will understand better why a lifelong Evangelical with extensive international ministry experience  would become Catholic. Mostly my ministry experience includes the following: 1.) evangelization of children and teacher training  2.) teaching and playing  music 3.)  opening our home to many needing hospitality. I will refrain for now from giving a more complete resume.

I. Scripture

A. Protestants, - for all their touting of sola scriptura, - are not the ones who gave us the Scriptures. The Catholic Church has very strong arguments showing that it was indeed Catholics who preserved the sacred texts in the first place. You can add the Orthodox Churches to that as well.  It was the faithful monks living in monasteries - often in remote places - that carefully copied the texts and preserved them.

There are no such places that Protestants can point to since Protestants do not have monks or even priests in the first place. They rely on all the work that these ancient men of God did for all of Christianity.

Sure, Anglicans have priests, but many of them have also returned to the Catholic Church. Protestantism was forced on England by King Henry VIII. Many never wanted to leave Catholicism in the first place.

B. The Orthodox churches accept the longer canon of Scripture. That is, they have the same canon as is used by Catholics.

"These books—Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh—are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church.”
- Canon of Scripture Q&A

C. Protestants are the ones who changed Scripture. How did they do that? By removing books from the canon that both Catholic and Orthodox accept as canonical.  On what authority was that done? On the authority of the ones who decided that they had the authority to do so, and nothing more.

There was no ecumenical council called.

D. The Septuagint - which contains what the Orthodox call the longer canon and Catholics call the deuterocanonical books as well as the rest of the Old Testament - was the Scripture used in Jesus’ day. In fact, there are many quotes and references in the NT from what Protestants call the Apocrypha. Catholics call it the deuterocanonical books.

If you don’t believe me, read the deuterocanonical books and see for yourselves. Of course, you have to know the New Testament really well in order to see that. I have been amazed at times when the daily reading for the Catholic Church includes parts of those books.


If you are not very familiar with the New Testament, you can check out this website where the owner has documented many examples of such quotes.

Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

by James Akin

E. The principle of sola scriptura is easily set aside by Protestants when Scripture tends to disagree with their interpretations.  The Reformed Christians are especially notorious for ignoring what they call the plain reading of Scripture and going with their traditional interpretations. 

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than with Jesus’s words about the Eucharist. What part of “this is my body” is unclear” ?  

So, they go with something called sola scriptura, not solo scriptura. In other words, Scripture is really not alone. It has to be understood in light of the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Institutes of the Christian Religion or some other authority. 

Exactly. So sola scriptura is not what you think it is. It doesn’t really mean Scripture alone. 

It is a game that is played by Protestants - the sola scriptura dodge, I suppose it could be called. 

Why not just forget the whole game?  Which is what I did. 

Best Answers

When I asked the guys at Old Life how they justified all the divisiveness in Protestantism, here are the best answers I got. I will summarize them. Well, I know the answers because these are the ones that I used for years to justify it.

1. People are sinners, so they are going to have fights and divisions. It will be that way until Jesus comes.

2. Catholics are divided, too.

I also asked where in Scripture Protestantism as it is can be found.

One person brought up the doctrine of the remnant. Israel lost 10 tribes because of division.

He tried to use that as an explanation of why there is just a remnant of Reformed Christians who have remained faithful to God.

I think that example would fit very well of what happened in Catholicism when the Protestants split from the Church. I mean, that example can go either way. I think it goes the Pope’s way better than it does Calvin’s myself.

The guys know that Reformed Christianity is on the ropes. Lutheranism has gone liberal for the most part. Sure, there is a strong, faithful remnant, but that remnant is small. Will they be able to rescue Lutheranism from total apostasy?  Actually, I hope so.

The same goes for Calvinism. Look at the Reformed churches. Look at Presbyterianism.

It looks to me like the 10 tribes of the Reformation split from Rome are just kind of disappearing.

Now, many are able to go along just fine thinking that Catholicism is just as divided as Protestantism. Of course, that is not true in the same way the divisiveness in Protestantism is true, but it is a way to cope with all the divisiveness we see in it.

Also, it is very true that our sinfulness is what causes divisions in the first place. However, where in the Bible do we ever see sinfulness as a justification for, well, sin?  That dodge - sinners are gonna’ fight and separate - is a lot like “the devil made me do it” excuse.

Our tendency to sin is an explanation. It is not a Biblical justification, obviously.

So, some of the guys did try their best to answer my challenge, and this is the best they could come up with. Again, how do I know? That is the best I could come up with after years of experience in Evangelicalism.

So, tell me again why Protestants left the Church in the first place?  To me, it is looking more and more like rebellion and not reformation.  They didn’t fix anything, reform, anything, or change anything by leaving.

Yesterday I said that Old Life is my Protestant detox. They have given me no reason, - not even based on their own principles of sola scriptura and the WCF - to return to Protestantism.

A Calvinist Discovers John Calvin

A Calvinist Discovers John Calvin

“I studied Calvin for years before the real significance of what I was learning began to sink in. But I finally realized that Calvin, with his passion for order and authority, was fundamentally at odds with the individualist spirit of my Evangelical tradition. Nothing brought this home to me with more clarity than his fight with the former Carmelite monk, Jerome Bolsec.

In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.

What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2

What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3″

--------------------------------------

I knew some of what the author of this article, David Anders wrote. I already knew that Calvin was not such a wonderful man in many ways. He had his good points, but he also had very high negatives. Sure, no one is going to be convinced, since Calvin’s apologists are always willing to defend his actions. I didn’t leave Protestantism because Calvin was not such a nice guy. Calvinists can always point to the fact that we are all sinners, but the grace of God is what we rely on. They are correct.

However, what should be hard for Calvinists to defend is the authoritarian nature of John Calvin’s actions. It should be easy to figure out why. One of the main arguments used against the papacy and papists, as Catholics are called, is that the Pope was authoritarian.

Calvin had no trouble with authoritarianism as long as it was his brand of it. 

What I take away from this - and what I came to realize myself - is that there really was no reason to separate from the Catholic Church in the first place. If there was no reason to separate, then there is no reason to stay separated.

Everything good about the Evangelicalism I loved - and love - is found in Catholicism, only more so. I discovered the Communion of the Saints for one thing. That communion is very much alive and well.

Sure, there are many things that people can and do criticize about the Church.  It would be good to take a close look at what she actually is and what she actually teaches.

The comments section below the article is very interesting as well.

Chesterton Quote - Reformer always right about what’s wrong.

“The Reformer is always right about what's wrong. However, he's often wrong about what is right.”

― G.K. Chesterton

 

Where is the Catholic Church in your town?

TVD:

Actually, the claim is that there is one visible catholic Catholic Church, and a bunch of willfully separated denominations that have true baptism, but have lost much or most of the rest–including any apostolic authority.

St. Augustine writes:

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…and so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.

– Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397)