Tag Archives: Search for Truth

The Missing Part

29 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by in C.S. Lewis, Miracles, Thought for the Day

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Let us suppose we possess parts of a novel or a symphony. Someone now brings us a newly discovered piece of manuscript and says, ‘This is the missing part of the work. This is the chapter on which the whole plot of the novel really turned. This is the main theme of the symphony’. Our business would be to see whether the new passage, if admitted to the central place which the discoverer claimed for it, did actually illuminate all the parts we had already seen and ‘pull them together’. Nor should we be likely to go very far wrong. The new passage, if spurious, however attractive it looked at the first glance, would become harder and harder to reconcile with the rest of the work the longer we considered the matter. But if it were genuine then at every fresh hearing of the music or every fresh reading of the book, we should find it settling down, making itself more at home and eliciting significance from all sorts of details in the whole work which we had hitherto neglected. Even though the new central chapter or main theme contained great difficulties in itself, we should still think it genuine provided that it continually removed difficulties elsewhere. Something like this we must do with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Here, instead of a symphony or a novel, we have the whole mass of our knowledge. The credibility will depend on the extent to which the doctrine, if accepted, can illuminate and integrate that whole mass. It is much less important that the doctrine itself should be fully comprehensible. We believe that the sun is in the sky at midday in summer not because we can clearly see the sun (in fact, we cannot) but because we can see everything else.

Miracles by C.S. Lewis

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 3

09 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

On this day in 1845 a significant event took place. It was an event that would figure prominently in my own life as well as the life of many others throughout the years. The event in question was the reception of Blessed John Henry Newman from the Church of England into the fullness of the Catholic Faith. He, having been an Anglican priest, was subsequently ordained a Catholic priest and later made a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on September 19, 2010 (which happens to be the same date, in 2004, that I was ordained as an Anglican priest). The reason he is so important for me and many others (former Anglican priests as well as laity) is that he was our forerunner. His courage of leaving all behind in order to follow his conscience in regards to his faith is something that has inspired countless people to also leave everything behind for the cause of the Kingdom of God. His writings have taught many Anglicans the Truths of the Catholic Faith. His life, in fact, is an enduring witness of the relentless pursuit of the Truth. I cannot help thinking that if he had not followed the path that was laid before him then I may not be where I am right now: a priest in Christ’s one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And, even more than that, without Newman’s witness I might not have become Catholic at all.

So, how does Bl. Cardinal Newman fit into my current series on Islam, you ask? It is because of something he wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. There he writes,

True religion is the summit and perfection of false religions; it combines in one whatever there is of good and true separately remaining in each. And in like manner the Catholic Creed is for the most part the combination of separate truths, which heretics have divided among themselves, and err in dividing. So that, in matter of fact, if a religious mind were educated in and sincerely attached to some form of heathenism or heresy, and then were brought under the light of truth, it would be drawn off from error into the truth, not by losing what it had, but by gaining what it had not, not by being unclothed, but by being ‘clothed upon,’ ‘that mortality may be swallowed by of life.’ That same principle of faith which attaches it at first to the wrong doctrine would attach it to the truth; and that portion of its original doctrine, which was to be cast off as absolutely false, would not be directly rejected, but indirectly, in the reception of the truth which is its opposite. True conversion is ever of a positive, not a negative character.

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 6th ed., 2005, p.200-1

The point that concerns us here, in regards to individual Muslims and their possibility of conversion, is here, “…if a religious mind were educated in and sincerely attached to some form of heathenism or heresy, and then were brought under the light of truth, it would be drawn off from error into the truth, not by losing what it had, but by gaining what it had not.” What this means is that those sincere Muslims who are earnestly seeking God through their religion would, if confronted with the Truth of the Catholic Faith and received it in an unbiased manner, be converted to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. This is because if they are truly searching for God, for the Truth, then when confronted with the fullness of that Truth which they seek they would not be able turn away from it. But, of course, this would depend upon them being able to hear the Gospel in a unbiased manner, meaning with no preconceived notions about the Catholic Faith. But that seems unlikely. But still, we must hold to the hope that those who have ears to hear will hear the Truth, accept it, and live it out in their lives.

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 2 continued

06 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth, Update

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Clarification on the last post…which is why this is called part 2 continued

My last post is one of those instances of pushing the ‘publish’ button too soon. If I had reflected on it more, specifically the last paragraph, then I probably would have noticed a change that needed to be made before posting it. I say ‘probably’ because I am not actually the one that noticed the problem – it was pointed out to me by my friend (who is also the one that has prompted me to write this particular series).

The paragraph in question is as follows:

If this interpretation is accurate we could therefore say that the ‘plan of salvation’ is simply God’s desire for all mankind to be saved, which is true and therefore, ‘plan of salvation’ does not somehow make Islam, or any other religion, equal to the one and only true religion established by Jesus Christ.

The problem with this paragraph centers on the wording “simply God’s desire for all mankind to be saved.” The reason that this is a problem is because the plan of salvation is much more than “simply God’s desire” for all mankind to be saved. Instead, it is God actively working throughout the entire history of mankind to bring about our salvation. Although, it could be argued that since God is pure act then His desire for something to happen is the same as the action itself. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity it should have been stated more precisely to begin with.

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 2

03 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

What to do about Lumen Gentium 16?

I continue today my reflection on Islam that has been prompted by an email I received from a friend. In that email he brings up the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, §16, which in part states:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

The part I am struggling with here is “the plan of salvation also includes…the Muslims”. Without explaining what is meant by “the plan of salvation” the document makes it sound like (at least to me) that all religions are valid paths to salvation. (The idea that all religions are valid paths to God makes me apprehensive and defensive, which in turn can lead to quick tempered reactions on my part. But, such reactions can obviously be counterproductive, which I will address later in this series.) But of course this couldn’t be true because it contradicts what the Church has always taught: that salvation comes to us only through Jesus Christ.

In order to try and resolve the problem of the meaning of “plan of salvation” I tried searching for a commentary on Lumen Gentium. There was only one document that appeared useful, which was by Daniel J. Castellano. And, to make sure the interpretation given to the phrase in question was valid, I tried looking up the author. I couldn't find much information but it does seem that he is very intelligent Catholic (undergrad from MIT, graduate studies at Boston University). Hopefully that means his interpretation can be trusted because I have not found anything to corroborate what he says. Below is what he has to say about the phrase in question (rest of the article here):

Since God’s “plan of salvation” is implemented solely through the Church, the Council is here asserting that the Church is linked in some way to all who believe in the Creator. This is most obviously the case with the Muslims, who share our belief in the one God of Abraham. It cannot be said that the God of Islam is another false god, even if the Muslims might differ from Christians in theological doctrines. They clearly give honor to the Creator, not a mere creature, and respect His sovereignty over all men. This ability to recognize the one God is a gift of the Holy Spirit administered through the Church. Going further, St. Paul famously commended the Athenians for honoring a mere “unknown God.” (Acts 17:23) Though they had no positive understanding of the one God as the Muslims do, they at least had the inclination to honor that which transcended their understanding of creation. This seeking is also a gift of the Holy Ghost to the Church. We should not be surprised to see this salvific activity beyond the visible structure of the Church, given the Savior’s desire for all men to be saved. (1 Tim. 2:4)

If this interpretation is accurate we could therefore say that the “plan of salvation” is simply God’s desire for all mankind to be saved, which is true and therefore, “plan of salvation” does not somehow make Islam, or any other religion, equal to the one and only true religion established by Jesus Christ.

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 1

02 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Truth, Update

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Yesterday one of my friends sent me an email in response to my post yesterday. He made some excellent points on how to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves with Islam. There were too many points he made to discuss it all at once, especially because I do not have enough time. Therefore, it is my plan to do several posts over the next few days to work through what I have learned from my friend.

The first thing that needs to be discussed is the picture that I posted a link to yesterday. Supposedly it was a Muslim cleric who did this recently, but the website found here says that the picture was actually from several years ago and that the man responsible was in fact arrested. This information has given me sufficient doubt about the situation that I have decided to delete yesterday’s post. But let me add that the deletion of that post does not mean that I have changed my mind about Islam. I still do not believe that it is a religion of peace. Certainly there are Muslims in the world that want to live their lives in peace but I do not believe that the religion itself is peaceful. Nevertheless, in this series I will reflect more on this issue and see if there is perhaps something I am missing that has caused me to see Islam incorrectly. After all, we should never blindly hold to an incorrect understanding about anything, instead, we should always seek the Truth.

The Amount that I Don’t Know

26 Thursday Jun 2014

Posted by in Update

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

The two or three of you who regularly look at my blog may be wondering if I have fallen off the face of the earth since I have been posting so sparsely. I could make excuses and say it was because I was out of town on vacation, which I was. But the main reason is that I do not feel I have had much to say. There is a reason for this.

I have mentioned in previous posts that I have been reading more books of a philosophical nature. It started with von Hildebrand and from there to Josep Pieper. I have learned a great deal from these two wonderful authors but I have also learned something else – how much I do not know. Unlike most of my brothers in the priesthood I do not have any background in philosophy. The reason for this is that philosophical studies are not a part of the curriculum at the Episcopal seminary I attended (or any other Episcopal seminary as far as I know). Due to this lack of knowledge I have felt that I have nothing worth saying.

I addition to this general feeling of ignorance I have also been mentally kicking myself for all the time I wasted earlier in my life. I spent so much time just watching TV or playing video games and had no real desire to learn. All that time I wasted that I could have been laying the groundwork for what I now need to know. Instead, I indoctrinated myself (through the seemingly tame influence of television) in the wrong thinking of our modern society. And now, how much I have to unlearn and how much I have to learn!

Thanks be to God I have a friend at the parish (who is a systematic theologian) who has agreed to help me get ‘up to speed’ in my deficiencies. And I ask you, the reader, to pray that God may open my mind to understand.

The Conformity of Our Minds with What Is

15 Thursday May 2014

Posted by in Truth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Yesterday, while reading Leisure: The Basis of Culture, I came across a term with which I was unfamiliar: capax universi. Therefore, as I usually do, I looked it up on my iPad. This term seems to mean, at least in philosophy, that the mind has the ability to know all things. I found this definition from one of the first entries that popped up in the search engine: an article by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. This name immediately caught my attention because he happens to be the man who wrote the foreword for Leisure: The Basis of Culture, which is, of course, where the term came from that I was looking up! To this many may say that it was mere coincidence. But I do not believe in coincidence. Things like this happen for a reason and, therefore, I read the whole article.


It is interesting that the article was very similar in meaning to Leisure: The Basis of Culture, and he even mentions the book in the article. But there is one thing in particular that caught my attention. In his discussion of truth he says the following, “Truth is the conformity of our minds with what is.” By this he would not mean that the veracity of something is dependent upon human thought nor would he mean that truth only exists if the human mind has conceived it. After all, Jesus Christ is the Truth and He exists whether or not we understand Him or even if we think He doesn't exist at all. No, truth is not dependent upon the human mind. Instead, (what I think) he means is that we can and do know the truth if our understanding is in conformity with how things truly are. For example, we cannot possibly understand the truth of the universe around us if we start with the false premise that it is all here by some big cosmic coincidence. Certainly, there are many atheistic scientics that know plenty of ‘facts’ about the universe but they will never understand the truth of it until they accept it for what it really is – God's own creation.

But this understanding has consequences outside the lives of atheistic scientists. In fact, it is something every Christian needs to know and understand in order to come closer to God. If we would come closer to God then we must start with a correct understanding of the universe: God created all things – including ourselves. Therefore, we do not belong to ourselves and we cannot make our own rules concerning what is right and what is wrong. True, God gave us all free will and we can do as we please whether it be right or wrong. But to go off and blaze our ‘own’ path in the name of freedom with no regard for the truth of things (that we are creatures under Someone's authority) would be to become less than human because a creature cannot become something that it was not created to be. A mouse could not become an elephant even if it could desire to do so. And man cannot become God just because he makes up his own rules. In the end he may get some of the ‘facts’ right (like the atheistic scientist) but he will never understand the Truth.

On ‘Discussing’ a Married Priesthood

30 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in God's Will, Priesthood, Update

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Below is my response to a good friend of mine who happens to be a canon lawyer. In her email to me she made some very good points and has changed my thoughts on 'discussing' a married priesthood.

Your points are very good and perhaps you are right – perhaps there should not be any discussion of this at all – at least not by those without any decision making ability. And maybe I didn't even really mean to bring up the idea of “discussion”. I think, for me, the problem resides in the fact that almost all the faithful Catholics that write or speak on the subject (many of them priests) seem to either simply dismiss the subject or speak against it angrily. And I, believing myself to be a faithful Catholic priest, am very hurt when they seem to be so vehemently against the idea. The result is that I feel like a second class priest or that I am not a real priest somehow – at least in their minds.

Nevertheless, the more I think about it the more I think you are correct. This kind of discussion amongst the members of the Church can too easily lead to very bad situations. But, does that mean we don't discuss it at all? I don't know. After all, as you said, we can and should support all those celibate men now studying and who will study to enter the priesthood; but what happens if we run out of those men? Perhaps God is giving us the answer with having more married men as priests but we are not willing to see it? But then again, we must trust that the Holy Spirit does guide the Church and we don't want to be found fighting against Him. And, ultimately, it is up to the Pope and Bishops in communion with him to discern where the Holy Spirit is trying to lead us. But in contrast to that we cannot forget about the sensus fidei, although that applies not just to those members of the Church here and now, but throughout all time. I guess this could go on and on and that is why this is such a difficult topic.

But, I just realized something else. This is not just about my hurt feelings, although that probably is what spurred me on to track down Dr. Peters' email in order to contact him. Another issue that should be considered is this – my two boys (along with other married priests and their boys). The only thing my boys know and experience on a daily basis is a married priesthood. This is how they are being formed as Catholics and therefore what do we do when one or both of them desires to be both husband and priest?

So, what is the answer? I do not know and the decision to have a married priesthood or not in the Catholic Church does not reside with me. As I said in yesterday's post on this subject – I am not trying to start a crusade. But, I will continue to encourage my boys (and of course my girls as well, but we are talking about the priesthood here) to follow God's will and plan for their lives. And if one or both of them feel God calling them to be both a husband and a priest then I will encourage and support them in that and do all I can to help them fulfill God's plan for their life.

In Regards to a Married Priesthood

29 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Canon Law, Catholic Obligations, Christian Unity, Priesthood

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Below is an email I sent to Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer who I have referred to before on my blog. The purpose for my email to Dr. Peters was in regards to his article on clerical celibacy which can be found here. It would be helpful to read what he wrote in order to understand my response. This is in no way to be seen as a retaliation of what he wrote, nor from his response to me did he seem to take it that way. My concern is that good, faithful Catholics do not just dismiss out of hand the idea of a married priesthood, which it seems they are wont to do because the subject is often wrongly attached to progressive ideas like women priests and other such innovations. Dr. Peters response to me was very cordial and he has given permission for this to be published. I have edited it by taking parts I found unnecessary for this post.

…let me say that I find your blog to be very helpful. I have also read your book Excommunication and the Catholic Church, which I also found to be helpful. As a convert to the Catholic Faith from being an Episcopal priest, your writings are helping me to understand some of the ins and outs of canon law. Having become a Catholic priest through the Pastoral Provision I did not have adequate training in this area and so I appreciate what you have to say, especially because you are so faithful to the magisterium.

Having said I was ordained through the Pastoral Provision you would be correct to assume that I am a married Catholic priest. Ellie, my wife, and I have been married for 19 years and have four children. And, being a married priest, the topic of clerical celibacy can be a touchy subject for me. And that brings me to the main reason for contacting you directly.

It is your post from April 10 on clerical celibacy I would like to discuss. Let me be the first to say that I am not necessarily advocating for married men to become priests. On the one hand, I believe it could help with the priest shortage. I also believe there are men who are called by God to be both a husband and a priest but who, because of the current law of the Church, must choose either marriage or the priesthood. On the other hand, I recognize that opening the priesthood to married men could cause just as many problems as it solves. For instance, in the divorce culture in which we live, it is very possible that a married priest's wife might leave him and therefore, what would be done about the priest? In the least, this situation would cause scandal in the local parish where he serves but would more likely have a farther reaching impact.

Some people, though, think a married priesthood is a crusade that must be pursued at all costs, especially those who have lumped it in with progressive ideas like women priests and homosexual ‘marriages’. But, of course, a married man can become a priest, whereas the two examples just mentioned are not possible at all.

I have often wondered if it is not the progressives who have pushed good people away from the idea of a married priesthood. The association it has with progressive ideas causes faithful Catholics to shy away from it it seems. But it is not a progressive idea at all but instead, was there from the very beginning. True, the Latin Church stepped in at a time in history and put an end to it for various reasons, but if those situations have changed then it does not seem to be to be ‘progressive’ to consider returning to it.

I bring all this up because in your post you compare the ‘merely disciplinary’ aspect of a celibate clergy with the ‘merely disciplinary’ Sunday obligation. It does not seem to me that these two things are even in the same ballpark. You, being a canon lawyer, would most definitely better understand all the implications of the term ‘merely disciplinary’. But it does not seem that these two things are at all similar.

The Sunday obligation, which is a requirement of canon law, is more than ‘merely disciplinary’. To do away with it would, I believe, be to go against one of God's commandments – keep holy the Sabbath day. The same cannot be said in regards to a married priesthood because there is no commandment of God forbidding it.

I do not say any of this in support of any progressive agenda whatsoever. I always strive to be completely faithful to the teachings of the one true Church that Jesus founded – the Catholic Church. And that is why I become saddened when other faithful Catholics dismiss out of hand the idea of a married priesthood.

My purpose here was to try to express myself clearly in regards to this subject. I hope I have done so. I do hope to hear from you and will also look forward to your blog postings. Also, with your permission because it involves you, I would like to post this letter on my blog. My hope would be to promote a sincere discussion about this subject and not agenda-ridden Church politics. May God bless you and all you do for His Holy Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

Fr. Jeffery W. Moore, Parochial Vicar

Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church

Your thoughts and comments are welcome. And please understand that I am NOT on a crusade to change the Church's position on priestly celibacy. I simply want faithful Catholics to be open-minded in regards to the subject of married men becoming priests and not to dismiss it without serious thought.

A Moment of Clarity

12 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

It is ironic that the thing I went to great lengths to avoid as a student (both K-12 and college) is now one of the things that I most enjoy and desire to do – to write. My desire to write stems from the desire to be able to effectively inform others of the Faith. Specifically, I would like to be able to write like Lewis, von Hildebrand, Thomas Howard or others who I greatly admire. These men inspire me because of their great ability to explain what is in their minds and I am not suggesting that I have reached such a level (or that I ever will). But I want to try and that is part of the reason for this blog and why I am posting today about an experience I had yesterday.

Yesterday, while I was in the Chapel for Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, I was meditating on happiness and the false idols that people pursue to try to fulfill that happiness they seek. It was one of those moments that you can see the Truth so clearly, but which is always hard to put into words. Nevertheless I tried to do so and below is what I wrote immediately after this moment of clarity.

They catch a glimpse of it but instead pursue the wrong thing, thinking that which they pursue is what will make them happy. As a result, due to never pursuing the right thing they never obtain that which they truly seek – Heaven. If they end up in Hell they then can clearly see what they wanted (Heaven), but then can never and will never reach it. What on earth they could have obtained is forever lost to them.

Like I said, I am no C.S. Lewis. I have not changed any part of it in order to stay true to my initial impression. Tomorrow (if I have time) I will try to explain better what it means. Until then, perhaps I could get some feedback from you. What do you think? Does it even make any sense?