Astoria, Oregon Safeway

Yesterday was a long day for us. My husband and I spent the morning packing & tying up loose ends before our trip down the Oregon coast. Every summer we go to a Christian conference near Lincoln City.

By about 2:30, we left town, on our way to Oregon. It was a beautiful day as we drove through areas that can have some really nasty, rainy weather even in the summer. Not yesterday, though, as it was sunshine all the way except for a bit of fog near the mouth of the Columbia River & a bit along the coast.

We stopped at Dismal Niche, where the Lewis and Clark expedition spent some time near the end of their journey. It is now part of the Lewis & Clark National Park. The rest area is very nice, with beautiful views of the bridge over the Columbia, the river, & Astoria on the Oregon side of the bridge.

My husband had a  couple of things he wanted to check out in town, so we looked around for awhile. It was dinner time by then, but neither of us was hungry. We decided instead to stop at the Safeway to get some things for the next day.

I took a look at the deli area, hunting for a sandwich. There was a lot of variety & some very nice-looking options, but I wasn't in the mood. Something did catch my eye, though.

At the end of the sandwich cooler, near the exit door stood a young man. Well, he was having some trouble standing. I wasn't sure if he was handicapped or not. So I went over to him and asked if he wanted a sandwich.

When I got close to him, I could tell why he was having trouble. The smell of alcohol on his breath was really strong. He picked out a sandwich and I told him to wait there while I bought it and brought it back to him.

He was still waiting when I got back, so I gave him the sandwich and walked him to the door. "You better take it outside so no one thinks you stole it," I said. He was pretty out of it, so I didn't think it would do much good to try to talk to him much. I did ask him where he lived, and he said he was homeless. I think I smiled and said goodbye - at least I hope I did. He pointed upwards and said, "Do you hear the music?"  Yes, there was music playing over the loudspeakers. Nice.

There was a young lady, employee of Safeway, who had come over to deal with the young man. She told me what I did was really a nice thing. I said some lame stuff about making wrong choices & how sad the young man's life was.

THEN, I started to think. Until then I was just reacting to the situation, but not in such a thoughtful way. Just doing my duty, I guess.

I did a good work, but how good?  What grade would I give myself?  I don't know. Do I grade myself on the curve, or compared to some absolute standard of righteousness & goodness?

I don't mean that there was no good at all in what I did. I mean it wasn't fully good. It was a little bit good.  Why do I say that?

Well, it dawned on me that the food we were buying will go on an expense account, not out of our own pocket. It is a work-related conference. So, it really cost me nothing financially to purchase the sandwich. It just went on the bill that we will turn in for reimbursement.

What did it cost me? A few steps to the cashier's and back to the sandwich cooler. A few words with a homeless young man. It didn't cost me much at all either financially or in sweat equity. We were in a beautiful, modern supermarket in a prosperous small town in one of the most beautiful settings in the world. I didn't even have to go outside my comfort zone.

So, on a scale of 1-10, how good was my good work? At least a 1, maybe, but it was a very incomplete work. Maybe just a 1, if that is how good works are judged - on a scale of 1-10.

It was a better work than most people, who would have ignored him altogether, but still. Is that how good works are judged?  If I compare myself with others, I am foolish. Good works probably are not judged on the curve.

Well, at least something is better than nothing. That is true. Something is better than nothing. A minuscule good work is better than no good work at all. How much better? A little higher up on the curve than the vast majority of people, whom I imagine would have done nothing?

Remember, though, the sandwich was not paid for out of my own pocket. Then, by assuming that I am in some special category of people who would do something as opposed to the vast majority who would have done nothing - but do I know that? No, I don't know that. So, my self-graded  "1" on the "good work-o-meter" may not even reach that standard. Maybe a .1?

Then other scenarios play in my head. How could I have scored better? How could I have reached a bit higher on the curve?

Instead of being a  afraid of the young man, I could have hugged him and told him how much Jesus loves him. I could have prayed a prayer of thanksgiving over the sandwich and asked God to bless this unfortunate human being.

Heck!  I could have bought him a soda and chips, maybe even a candy bar or a whole bag of food. That would have been a much better good work. If only I had thought of all that sooner! That would have put me much closer to St. Teresa of Calcutta range.

If I had thought to pray the O, my Jesus prayer with him, imagine how delighted the angels would have been!

So, how good, then, was my good work? It seemed that the Holy Spirit wanted me to do at least that much. It was prompted by grace, then.

I know it wasn't very good. It fell very far short of perfection. I could have done more. However, if I say that it was no good at all, then maybe I am offending the Holy Spirit who seems to have prompted me to do at least that much. I can't deny that grace was operating in me. There was a little bit of love involved, & that love from God who is love.

That brings me to today's Mass reading. It was on Jesus' analogies of the Kingdom of God to a treasure hidden in a field, a pearl of great price, & a catch of fish. (Matthew 13:44-52).

The video from the USCCB for today reminded me of a lesson I thought I had learned awhile ago. Good works are generally not perfect works. There generally is an element of selfishness, wrong motives, or cowardice mixed in. Those in today's reading were no exception.

Jesus' works are the only ones that are fully perfected, with no hint of selfishness or sin of any kind. Pure good works. Pure love. Oh, and because of a peculiar, special work of grace, the Blessed Virgin Mary was also preserved without sin from the time of her Conception.

What is my conclusion?

Well, the young man may have been an angel, sent to test me. When we left the Safeway just a couple of minutes later, the kid was nowhere to be found. How could he have gotten out of sight so fast?  Where did he go? Yes, my imagination is pretty active sometimes.

It's more likely he was just a lost boy making horrible choices in his life. I like the angel scenario, though. He did point up towards heaven and asked if I could hear the music, after all.

He was a messenger in a way. The meeting was providential, I believe.


How does a young man with such beautiful blue eyes end up on the streets?  Does he have a mother who prays for him or a father who looks for his return until his eyes become weary? Probably not. Maybe he does. Maybe my presence was an answer to his mom's or grandmother's prayers - or even his own. Why do I assume grace is not operative in his heart when the Holy Spirit is at work everywhere all the time?

My score is slipping!

Most street kids come from broken homes or single mothers. His parents are likely just as lost as he is. Yet there is hope. I call him a street kid because he was probably about 19 or 20 years old. Just a kid.

See my assumptions?

I can't not see those blue eyes...  or stop praying O, my Jesus...

Still, it is better to do even a small good work than none at all.  It increases happiness all around. It brings glory to God somehow. It is right and just to do good. They are a sign of God's grace at work in this dark, sinful world.

No, they do not buy God's grace, God's favor. A person cannot put a good work coin or point into the grace machine and expect God to do us a favor. He's not like that. You can't buy what has been freely given already.

It's complicated...

Catechisms

I’ve been reading Catholic Catechisms lately.

1. One was a fun Catholic Catechism from France. It was written in the early 1900s for older children, and is illustrated with lovely paintings. When we were in Dubai a couple of years ago, I bought it at the St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church. 

I like the way the author, through a kind translator, said the following about grace.:

Grace is a supernatural gift freely bestowed upon us by God through the merits of Jesus Christ for our salvation.
We speak of it as a free gift, because God bestows it purely and freely out of His own goodness, not being in any way obliged to do so. We call it supernatural because it transcends our own powers and cannot be acquired by our own unaided effort. We say that we obtain it through the merits of Jesus Christ, because He won it for us by dying on the cross for our sakes. And, lastly, we say that it is given to us for our salvation, because God grants it to us, not for our earthly happiness, but to enable us to merit the bliss of heaven.  (p. 20)

The book - unlike Gaul - is divided into IV sections.

I.   The Apostle’s Creed - with 13 articles
II.  The Sacraments - with 8 articles, including grace plus the 7 Sacraments
III. The 10 Commandments
IV. Prayer - The Last Things - Sin - Virtues - Works of Mercy (corporal and spiritual)

The Catechism in Pictures, translated from the French Un Catéchisme en Images
First printed by R.P. Baily, founder of the Maison de la Bonne Presse, France

1909

68 pp. with corresponding paintings to illustrate the teachings

2. For two years I followed the Flocknote posts about the Catechism - Catechism in a Year.

One year I did the Popes in a Year series from Flocknote. That was a fun way to go through all of Church history in abbreviated form.

3. I am now reading The Aquinas Catechism. Here is a bit from the Forward to this edition.

St. Thomas Aquinas preached a series of sermons during Lent in 1273, the last year of his life. Delivered in the church of San Domenico in Naples in Thomas’ native Neapolitan dialect (rather than Latin), the sermons were directed tot he simple faithful and had an immediate and profound impact on those who heard them.
We are told by a contemporary Neapolitan (John Coppa) that “almost the whole population of Naples went to hear his sermons every day.”  And William of Tocco writes that “he was heard by the people with such reverence that it was as if his preaching came forth from God.” (p. xi)

Here is one quote about the Holy Spirit. It is from the section on the Apostles’ Creed.

The Giver of Life. The soul´s life is union with God, inasmuch as God is the life of the soul (just as the soul is the life of the body). Now, the Holy Spirit unites us to God by love, for He is Himself God´s love, which is why He gives life: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth.” (John 6:64)  Hence they added, The Giver of Life.  

Aquinas’ friend, Reginald summarized the sermons in Latin, and that is how they came down to us.

I am reading the Sophia press edition. It is under 300 pages with wide margins and spaces between each section, so it is a fairly easy and quick read. I am a very slow reader, but others will have no trouble finishing it quickly. It is well worth the time.

These Catechisms are a lot of fun to read & very practical. Give it a try. Protestants may or may not be surprised at how much of what we are and were taught is actually taken from Catholicism.  My saying that may or may not sit well with some.

I might be wrong - :-) The Bible and Church Tradition are not

Since the Bible is infallible, there must be an infallible source that is enabled by the Holy Spirit to identify and interpret it infallibly.
The Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and therefore it is infallible. The Church also claims that the Holy Spirit has enabled the Church to not only identify but also interpret God’s Word infallibly. The Traditions of the Church - capital “T” - came first, then the Bible. First the Church was established, then the sacred Scripture was written, identified and codified. That is just a matter of history. You don’t have to know much of Church history to know that Tradition and Sacred Scripture have always worked hand in hand. Think about the New Testament. Again, the Church was established by Jesus first, then came the writing of the New Testament. 

The Holy Spirit accurately communicates truth to the Church, leading her into all truth just as Jesus promised. Jesus was talking to His disciples in John 16. I quoted part of that passage below. That is significant. The “you” is “all ya’ all”. He is talking to them as a group, not as individuals only. He is showing them how their apostolate will work - through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He is not telling them, " I will give you the Bible and each one of you needs to follow his own conscience in order to find the truth. “ You will not find that kind of “Protestant” thinking anywhere in the Bible. 
John 16 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
------------------------------------------------------------

Sola scriptura is a self-contradictory doctrine since it is not found in the Bible. Besides, no one holds to only the Bible, which is what many seem to advocate. For example. Reformed Baptist, Dr. White is a Calvinist. He defends sola scriptura. Get the picture? His doctrine is formed by the teachings of a man named John Calvin. He specifically follows what are called the Doctrines of Grace, also known as TULIP. He is also an advocate of Covenant Theology from a Baptistic perspective. He is NOT a “Bible only” kind of a guy. He is a Bible plus other standards like Covenant Theology and Calvinism - the Doctrines of Grace - kind of a guy. Another aspect of sola scriptura is that of the sufficiency of Scripture. So, if it is sufficient, why does a man like Dr. White need Calvinism? Why does he need Covenant theology or the Doctrines of Grace? He has to have his Calvinistic traditions in order to support his teachings. Also, sola scriptura involves a little thing called the perspicuity of Scripture. That is, the Bible is clear in its message. If the Bible is so clear in its message, why is there so much division, discussion, and disagreement just among the Calvinists? How many Presbyterian groups are there? How many Calvinistic Baptist groups are there? There is even a wing of Anglicanism that is Calvinistic. There are Calvinistic Methodists who follow guys like George Whitefield and Martin Lloyd-Jones. Then there are the Calvinistic Congregationalists, which are not especially liked by the Reformed Presbyterians. 

The underlying problem in even the best of Protestant groups has to do with the infallible Scripture-fallible standards principle. That is, Scripture is infallible, but there is no infallible way to know what it means. There are fallible ways to interpret Scripture, but not infallible ways.

Therefore each group can freely claim that they have the best way to interpret Scripture.

In fact, in Protestantism there really is no infallible way to know what Scripture is in the first place.

That’s a problem.

Sola Scriptura - what is it?

You have to go by the definition that those who believe the doctrine go by. Here is the most common summary of that doctrine. “ The Bible - [or Scripture] - alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” That statement does not rule out other, fallible - according to Reformed standards - rules of faith and practice such as creeds, catechisms, and the works of important theologians including Church Fathers. It is NOT "Bible only.” The problem that I finally had to face up to is this. I will try to state it simply and clearly, so please bear with me. The Bible is infallible. Catholics and Protestants agree on that point. How then can a fallible rule of faith be trusted to interpret that Bible? I don’t think it can. There must be an infallible way to interpret the infallible Word of God. It is the Holy Spirit who makes the Bible infallible, not the decisions of men. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into all truth. The Holy Spirit is not confused or divided, so He must have some way to 1. inspire Scripture 2. Preserve Scripture 3. lead the Church into all Truth. What is that way? It is called Church Tradition.

The Protestant Reformation did not give us the Bible. Catholic Tradition gave us the Bible. Catholic Tradition preserves the Bible. Sola scriptura was a doctrine invented just 500 years ago. It is not found in the Bible itself, no matter how much Protestants say it is. Yes, Protestants also love Scripture, but in general are not familiar with how we got our Bibles. We all have the Traditions of the Catholic Church to thank for its very existence. Before the Bible came the Traditions. Think about it. Jesus founded the Church. The New Testament was finished sometime in the 1st Century, but after the founding of the Church.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were when the Catholic Church determined what books actually belong in the Bible. [1.] It was officially settled then, and then reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. [2.]

It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.[3.]

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

1.the councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397, 419 A.D.)

2It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
They are the following:
Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures 3. Catholic Answers -  Was the canon of Scripture determined before the Church councils that decided it?

How to Become a Catholic

First I ignored the Catholic Church, then I laughed at the Catholic Church, then I fought the Catholic Church, then I became Catholic.

- Matt Swaim of the Coming Home Network

That pretty much sums it up for me as well.  

Luther and Tradition

Luther deliberately rejected Church Tradition. Whatever he retained from Tradition he retained because he decided to retain it. Whatever he didn’t like about Tradition, he rejected. His own spirit became the umpire for his belief system. He became his own final authority. Here is how he defended the addition of a word that is not in the original Biblical text. See that he refused any and all correction. He appealed to himself as the final authority on the subject.

"But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.”

- From Luther’s Open Letter on Translating

------------------------------------------------- I will add that no Bible translator in our day - Protestant or Catholic - would ever get away with adding words to Scripture in order to defend a pet doctrine. That is not acceptable at all, yet Luther did it and accepted no correction. So, yes, Luther set the tone for all Protestants. His influence is clearly seen in all denominations. Each denomination, - and then each individual within that denomination - feels free to pick and choose what doctrines it will accept and what doctrines it will reject. Hence the continuous infighting, and then divisions within Protestantism. Yes, Luther kept a lot of Catholic teaching, but so what? He did it because “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so.” Is that what Jesus intended for His Church? If it is, then prove from Scripture that the attitude Luther had was the one Jesus wanted His people to have. There is abundant Scriptural evidence to prove that Jesus indeed wants His Church to be one, even as He and the Father are one. (See John 17 and Ephesians 4 for starters.)

I couldn’t defend the divisions anymore. We are supposed to be one Church, not many.

Some like the idea that they are free to pick and choose whatever they wish to believe and still call it Christian. Some make better choices than others. Some are really seeking the truth, and not just an excuse to make up their own religion. I get that.

Freedom is a great gift. Some believe that being free means not submitting to an organized Church. It gets complicated. I understand that, since I was a Protestant my whole life until not long ago.

Many look for a denomination that will give them more structure than that. Few have the time or inclination to make up their minds about every point of doctrine. However, if all Protestant denominations claim the Bible as their final authority, why are there so many different denominations?

Maybe I just hope that some will take another look at the Catholic Church’s claim to being the one that Jesus founded.

...and so forth.

Jesus founded only one Church. Yes, Protestants are real Christians. I am not saying they are not. What I am saying is that Jesus did not mean for us to be so antagonistic towards one another.

I am also saying that, even with all her warts and flaws, the Catholic Church still has the right message about unity. I understand that not all want to come Home to Rome. I get that. Rome is still Home, and always has been since Jesus founded His One Church.

Maybe at least Protestants - and those of us who used to be Protestants :-) - and Catholics could try a little harder to accept one another as brethren? That would be a good place to start.

Pope Francis is trying to lead in the right direction, I believe.

Sola Scriptura

The Protestant Reformation did not give us the Bible. Catholic Tradition gave us the Bible. Catholic Tradition preserves the Bible. Sola scriptura was a doctrine invented just 500 years ago. It is not found in the Bible itself, no matter how much Protestants say it is. Yes, Protestants also love Scripture, but in general are not familiar with how we got our Bibles. We all have the Traditions of the Catholic Church to thank for its very existence. Before the Bible came the Traditions.