Shepherds for the Whole World

"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19).

"Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, makes himself an enemy of God" (Jas. 4:4).

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (Jas. 1:27).

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:18-19).

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12).

"We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God" (1 Cor. 2:12).

"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it is necessary that offences come, but woe to that man by whom the offence comes!" (Matt. 18:7)

"Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor. 6:2)

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world gives do I give you" (John 14:27).

"Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the pagans seek...But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you" (Matt. 6:31-33).

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither does it know him" (John 14:17).

"For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world" (2 Tim. 4:10).

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me" (John 17:9).

"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor. 3:19).

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16).

"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you" (1 John 3:13).

"But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (1 Cor. 11:32).

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Gal. 6:14).

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome , the latter end is worse with them than the beginning" (2 Pet. 2:20).

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world hears them" (1 John 4:5).

"Be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom. 12:12).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, That you shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and you shall be sorrowful , but your sorrow shall be turned into joy" (John 16:20).

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15).

"For what does it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26)

  *  *  *  *  * 

The list of Bible verses above is just a sampling of those that deal with the Christian's relationship with that entity known as "the world". The world is a very interesting term in the New Testament. It appears throughout the New Testament, but especially in the writings of St. John, where it is used a total of 105 times in 78 verses. 

The word can mean various things. Sometimes it simply means the sum total of things here and now; i.e., the universe, as in Revelation 13:8, "And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world." Sometimes it means the world as the physical location of humanity, or simply in contrast with heaven, such as in John 3:17, "For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him." Sometimes "the world" is synonymous with humanity, as in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world." 

But the majority of uses of "the world" in the New Testament refer to the world as the system of human existence under its various aspects: as a place of earthly joys and passions, and especially as a system that is hostile to God. In this sense, the world is something that is in opposition to God and His kingdom, as in John 8:23, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." Over 50% of all uses to the word "world" (κόσμος, "kosmos") in the writings of John use this adversarial language; this percentage increases when we take into account similar uses of κόσμος, by St. Paul ("Hath God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God" ~1 Cor. 1:20-21).

Thus, although there is certainly some nuance in the word, we are safe in suggesting that the primary usage of the phrase "the world" in the New Testament is in reference to the entire earthly system of opposition to God under all its aspects, the "City of Man" of St. Augustine, whose head is ultimately the devil (cf. Luke 4:5-6. 1 John 5:19). Because the head of this system is the devil - and because there is no concord between the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of the Devil (2 Cor. 6:15) - it is clear that the New Testament posits a relationship of fundamental and irreconcilable hostility between the Church and the world. Hence St. James can say, "do you not know that the friendship of this world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, makes himself an enemy of God" (Jas. 4:4).

  *  *  *  *  * 

Of course there is a popular saying, long hallowed in Christian tradition, that believers are to be "in the world but not of the world." This formula, "in but not of", is seen as a way to resolve the tension between the Christian's call to love the people of the world whilst simultaneously refusing to become "part" of the world. It is often invoked as an admonishment to those Christians who no longer wish to engage the corrupt culture but merely withdraw from it. "The Bible says we are to be in the world but not of it. Disengagement is not an option."

You may surprised to learn that this phrase "in the world but not of the world" never appears in the New Testament. It seems to be based loosely on John 17:14-15, where Jesus prays,"I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil." Here Jesus specifically teaches that we are "not of the world", and that though we must remain physically present in it, He prays that God would keep us from its evil. In other words, Jesus never says by way of command that we are to be engaged in the world; He merely says that since we must be physically present in the world by necessity, God should keep us from the world's evil, which is quite a different shade of meaning than that conveyed by "in but not of."

  *  *  *  *  * 

The goal of the Christian life if holiness. Yet what is holiness? What does it meant to be holy? We understand that we are called to be loving, forgiving, etc. But what does it mean to be "holy"? Is holiness a mere sum of all other natural and supernatural virtues? And what about God? God is love, power, forgiveness, justice and so on. But what does it mean when the angels cry that God is "holy, holy, holy?"

The fundamental definition of holiness is separation. The Latin word for holiness is sanctitas, from whence sanctity. Holiness denotes separation or consecration unto God. When the angels cry "holy, holy, holy" it is because God is so far separate and distinct from all created things that awe is the only appropriate response in his presence. "Between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them", the Fourth Lateran Council taught (cap. 3, "On Heretics"). St. Thomas defines holiness as a firm separation of created things which are translated from profane use to use in the service of God (STh II-II Q. 81 art. 8). This is why Holy Water, Holy Cards, Holy Candles, Holy Oil, etc. have the adjective "holy" - once they are consecrated, they are "set apart" for divine worship exclusively. To use Holy Oil for cooking for Holy Water for common washing would be sacrilegious. Their consecration is what makes them "holy", and hence set apart for divine use exclusively.

Of course, a person is holy in a different sense than an object, but the fundamental reality that holiness means separation remains. A man with Holy Orders is set apart for the service of God. A holy person is one whose life is separated from worldly concerns and activities and who already lives, even in the flesh, in contemplation of heavenly things. Holiness is separation; separation from worldly uses and a setting apart unto God, "who is above all, through all, and in all" (Eph. 4:6).

  *  *  *  *  * 

With the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church adopted a posture of "openness" to the world. Pope John XXIII harbored great hopes for a kind of reconciliation between the Church and the world that would lead to the mutual building up of both; what he called a "new order of human relations", while also condemning those "prophets of gloom" who only saw the modern world in a negative light. This led to a massive paradigm shift in the post-Conciliar Church, a pivot towards the world. It matters not whether the Council documents ever called for this pivot; the essential weakness of the conservative response to the Council has been a narrow focus on the Council documents' language and a failure to comprehend the Council as an event (see, USC, "Book Review: Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story", Aug. 2013). The pivot happened and it must be acknowledged as a fact.

The result of this pivot was a blurring of distinction between the Church and world, between merely natural goods and supernatural goods. Worldly concerns seemed to be become the Church's concerns. It started innocently enough with "world peace," but then moved on to all sorts of other issues, occupying bigger and bigger parts of the Church's canvas until the Church appeared as little more than an NGO concerned with worldly problems like climate change and youth unemployment. Not that the Church has no concern with temporal evils that offend God; but as the Church shifted its focus more and more towards merely natural goods, it began to address them with increasingly little reference to man's supernatural ends.

The results were a spiritually deadening and embarrassingly banal Church that gives us such gems as "Driver's Ten Commandments", documents about immigration reform, and of course, encyclicals on global warming.

  *  *  *  *  * 

This is all very shady territory, of course, because there can always be an argument made that these are all issues of profound concern to Christians. There is often an ambiguity in these sorts of pronouncements; what one gets out of them largely depends on what one reads into them. We are talking about mood and emphasis, not doctrine. I remember a Protestant friend of mine, upon hearing of some new papal gesture for world peace, said, "It's weird...it's like he's trying to be the pope of the world or something." And that was under the pontificate of Benedict! Needless to say he is not very impressed with Pope Francis; there is no discernible "Francis Effect" on him, at least not in the positive sense.

Perhaps this all expresses the tension in modern Catholicism - once one has opened up to the world, what is the overlap between one's duties to the Church and to the world? What happens when they are in contradiction? Can they be in contradiction? In traditional Catholicism the answer was clear: the Church and the world were in a fundamental state of opposition. But once we have pivoted towards the world, what now?

Case in point: Consider Pope Benedict XVI's recent letter in which the Pope Emeritus states that the Church's pastors should be "shepherds for the whole world." Benedict wrote:

"The service of a shepherd cannot be only limited only to the Church [even though] in the first place, we are entrusted with the care of the faithful and of those who are directly seeking faith. [The Church] is part of the world, and therefore it can properly play its service only if it takes care of the world in its entirety.”

What is a Catholic to make of these words? It is certainly true, in one sense, that since the mission of Christ was to redeem the whole human race, the Church can never concern herself solely with matters entirely internal. She must always be considering her mission ad gentes; God wills all men to be saved, and so we must labor for all men to be so.

This is nothing new. But is that the sense in which Benedict means it? He goes on to say that the Church "must be involved in the efforts that humanity and society put into action" to address "the questions of our times."

The fundamental question is this: Is he envisioning the Church reaching out to make the world think about heavenly things, or the Church focusing more of its attention on worldly things? Does he want the Church to call the world to remember man's supernatural ends, or is he proposing the Church help to world attain its merely natural ends? Is this a call of the world to the Church or a capitulation of the Church to the world? The problem is both philosophies can be read into Benedict's words, depending on one's predisposition.

  *  *  *  *  * 

The Church has come a long way in its relation with the world. From a New Testament relation of essential opposition, to the modern zeitgeist of positivity and openness to the developments of the world. The tendency in the modern age is for the things going on in the world to be accepted by the Church. This certainly didn't begin with Vatican II; I personally think it began back when the Church began acclimating itself to the credit economy by mitigating its condemnations of usury (see USC, "Usury and Love of Money").

The Church must always engage the world with an aim of bringing men from the City of Man to the City of God; but this translation of one city to the other happens on the Church's terms, not the world's. We "become all things to all men that by all means we might save some" (1 Cor. 9:22); we go out into the highways and byways to all. But we go out into the highways so that we might bring the lost into the feast; we do not go into the highways that we might join the lost wandering around outside. This is what so many Christians are missing, because like a kid who wants to be 'cool' and is embarrassed by his parents, Christians are ashamed to bring the lost to their Father's house.

In other words, finding it increasingly too difficult to break with the world to become truly Christian, the Christian people have simply decided to become one with the world and call it Christian. Rather than seek holiness by separating from worldly thoughts and behaviors, they have chosen to wallow in their worldliness and call it the 'universal call to holiness.' And as long as this is the reality, protestations against creeping worldliness will go unheeded, the worldiness of anthropocentric ecclesiastical policies will not even be recognized let alone corrected, and those who seek to pursue a true separation from the world in the classical Christian sense will ironically be accused of escapism and failure of Christian charity.

"When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" ~Luke 18:8

The Mass is not the Faith and Other Items

Recently I posted an article in which I stated that "The Mass is not the Faith. The Faith is bigger than the Mass." I initially thought this concept would be readily agreed upon by my readership, but on our Facebook thread a rather sizable dispute erupted over the phrase. Some misunderstood this phrase to mean I was saying the Mass wasn't important, or that it did not affect our faith, or that it was disposable; others disagreed and argued passionately that the Mass and the Faith were identical. I wanted to take an opportunity to explore this phrase further and clear up some other issues from the last article.

By the way, thank you for the thoughtful and (for the most part) charitable comments. I learn very much from them and never object to being disagreed with - it has not infrequently happened that a revolt in my combox has led me to reevaluate and change my position subsequently.

So, what is the Faith? What is the Mass? Why is it right to say that the Mass and the Faith are not the same thing?

When we speak about "the Faith", we typically refer to the Catholic religion in its totality. This would include everything a Catholic believers and everything he does. In the words of the Catechism, the Faith is "all that she herself is, all that she believes" (CCC 78). Let us examine what this entails.

First, the deposit of Divine Revelation, included both in the Sacred Scriptures and in the Sacred Tradition.

Second, all theological traditions and interpretations associated with the doctrines of Divine Revelation, as summed up in the Creeds of the Church and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

Third, all of the sacraments and liturgical functions and rites of the Church; how the Church worships.
Fourth, all of the Church's disciplinary customs (the Lenten Fast, no communion for divorced and remarried, etc.)
Fifth, the Church's hierarchical constitution.

Sixth, the spiritual heritage of the Church, from great prayers such as the Pater Noster and Rosary down to the smaller devotions that have come down to us.

Seventh, the heritage of the great saints who have all gone before us; the example of their lives, their profound writings, their contributions to doctrinal development, and their intercession from heaven.

Eighth, all of the Church's artistic heritage, both in her sacred art, sacred music and sacred architecture.

Ninth, the historical papal-magisterial corpus of writings.

We could probably include more - for example, great works of Catholic literature like the Divine Comedy or Everlasting Man; Hilaire Belloc, when writing on this question, tended to include European Christian culture as such - hence his famous statement, "Europe is the Faith; the Faith is Europe." But let us not cast our net too far abroad; everyone has their particular focus, but the above nine items would be the core of what I think most Catholics speak of when they refer to "the Faith."

It is a very broad thing, the Faith. It encompasses much more than a few propositions or ceremonies. It is a totality; it is in fact the fullest way of being human.

What is the relation of the Mass to the Faith?

The Mass is absolutely integral to the Faith. Remember the principle Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. There is an intimate union between Catholic belief, Catholic life and Catholic worship. The Eucharist, the heart of the Mass, is the "source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324). As such, it is the irreplaceable foundation from which Faith is built up and the end towards which it tends. It is difficult to overstate its intimate connection to the Faith. While it is possible to maintain the Faith without access to the Mass (like in Japan), the Faith without the Mass cannot long endure, at least not in its fullest form.

But the Mass is not the Faith itself. The Mass is to the Faith what a heart is to the body, or what an engine is to the car. It is integral. It is the center. The rest is of little value without it. It is that which gives vitality to the whole.

And yet, it is not the whole. Just as it would be foolish to present someone with a car engine and suggest you were giving them a whole car, or display a human heart and suggest you were displaying an entire human person, so it would be very reductive and inaccurate to suggest that the Mass itself is the Faith. Remember, the Faith can exist without the Mass. Did Cardinal Kung lose the Faith when imprisoned for 30 years without the Mass? Some of the Desert Fathers simply did not attend Mass because of their physical isolation. Nobody would accuse the founders of monasticism of not having the Faith. So the Mass is extremely important, but it is not the totality.

Msgr. George Agius in his 1928 classic Tradition and the Church states that the liturgy of the Church is the principal type of constitutive tradition. That is, of all the content that is uniquely passed on via Tradition, the liturgical rites of the Church hold a pride of place. This is because, while the Mass is not the Faith, the Mass sums up the Faith and itself instructs us in all of the fundamentals of the Faith.

Consider our list above. All of these are touched on in the ideal Mass. The Sacred Scriptures are read and expounded, the liturgy of the Church carried out for the glory of God; the Creed of the Church is professed and the Holy Eucharist is administered; the existence of the hierarchy is evidenced and the greatest spiritual treasures of the Church are demonstrated in the Pater Noster and other ancient prayers of the Mass. The saints are invoked and commemorated in an atmosphere of the Church's artistic and musical heritage. All is done in conformity with the Magisterial direction of the Church. All of this is summed up and offered with the most august sacrifice of the Son of God and presented to God the Father.

So the Mass touches on and sums up everything that is integral to the Faith. It reaches into every dimension of the Faith and incorporates each into its rites. It represents the core of the Faith, its most vital heart. But there is more content to the Faith than just the Mass. Yes, the Mass focuses in on those most essential elements and in doing so provides the most perfect form of instruction in the Christian faith. In a way, it crystallizes the most essential elements of the Faith for us in one singular, glorious act.

But the Faith in its entirety is not contained in the Mass. It would be absurd to try to claim, for example, that the entire historic papal Magisterium is some how included in the Mass. Or consider the sacraments - baptism, anointing of the sick, penance, all traditionally done outside Mass. Clearly, the Mass, though central, is not and was not meant to be all-encompassing. In fact, one complaint traditionalists have often made about the Novus Ordo rites is that it tends to try to make the Mass a "one-stop-shop" for everybody's spiritual needs. Baptisms, anointing, penance and everything else is incorporated into Mass, often (at least in the case of the last two) with deleterious results. The Mass was never meant to be a "one-stop-shop", and it is certainly not equivalent with the Faith itself, no matter how important.

It is therefore a little off center when Traditionalist Catholics focus on the Mass to the exclusion of everything else. There are a variety of ways this can happen; I don't want to cite examples for fear of possibly offending some other bloggers. But it definitely happens.

Can too much be made of the Mass? Well, yes and no. No in the sense that the Mass is the offering of Jesus Christ and has infinite merit; this cannot be emphasized too much. But yes if we give the Mass a position it was not meant to have, such as the "one-stop-shop" approach of the post-Conciliar era that is objected to by some traditionalists.

There is perhaps nobody in the Church who knows more about Tradition than Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP. Fr. Ripperger wrote the introduction to the modern reprint of Msgr. Agius' Tradition and the Church, which is admitted by all to be the pivotal work on the doctrine of Tradition. Fr. Ripperger has spoken and written copiously about tradition and has noted that it is a very common pitfall among Catholic Traditionalists to assume that faithful attendance at and devotion to the Extraordinary Form is an adequate substitute for knowledge of Catholic Tradition. In many cases, he says, so-called "Traditionalists" are entirely ignorant of the Tradition they profess to venerate. This is because they assign a role to the Mass it was never meant to have - i.e., assuming that the Mass suffices for everything, and that no further reading, study, etc. is necessary. Consequently they are woefully ignorant of Catholic tradition. You can listen to Fr. Ripperger's homily on this subject here, although the quality of the recording is very poor. His argument is that Traditionalists sometimes think mere attendance at the EF Mass is sufficient and that no further knowledge is necessary; or that mere attendance at such Masses imparts one all the knowledge of tradition they need.

Thus, the fundamental question: Should a priest who has been saying the Extraordinary Form Mass exclusively, upon being ordered to cease by his legitimate superior, obey this order?

I answer, absolutely. Yes. It may be an illegitimate order, but one must obey even illegitimate orders so long as they do not lead you to commit sin - and not saying an EF Mass is not a sin. If the legal channels are open to a priest to seek incardination elsewhere in a more friendly environment, that is a legitimate option open to him. In the meantime, a cleric is bound to observe any canonical penalties imposed by a superior - even if imposed errantly, or based on untruths. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that when a person is censured, even unjustly, "the censure has valid effects in that forum and must be observed externally, to avoid scandal and for good discipline." Therefore until the situation is resolved, or until that cleric becomes incardinated somewhere else, he is bound to observe the censure. 

What he ought not to do is declare that he is going to go off and keep on doing what he wants anyway because somehow the Old Mass just trumps everything no matter what. That is scandalous, to me at least. Am I not scandalized when bishops and members of the Magisterium crack down on good, faithful, traditional priests? Yes. I am horribly scandalized by it. Which is precisely why I do not want my scandal to be made worse by seeing these traditional priests play around with disobedience as a recourse to their difficulties.

Seeking transfer is a legitimate thing to do - in my last article too I stated that "it is certainly legitimate to seek legal redress to these problems through appropriate canonical channels." Even so, I don't think doing that is the most perfect form of obedience. The most perfect form would be to humbly and quietly submit to whatever was dished out to you, per the Apostle Peter:

"For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval...who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous of good? But if also you suffer any thing for justice' sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled" (1 Pet. 2:19-20, 3:13-14).

What do these passages from 1 Peter look like lived out in the life of a priest or order unjustly under attack for doing good? That is what I am trying to sort out. I think - especially since March, 2013 - we all are grappling with this. It will probably be sloppy. There will be a lot of collateral damage. But I do believe in my heart that the Church will not be saved by a bunch of people with the "I would like to be obedient, but" attitude.

I'm not bringing these things up because I "like" them or like thinking about them. But we are in strange times and we all need to sort these things out. May God be gracious to us all!

On Right Reading of the Old Testament (part 2)

Continuing on in our series on right reading of the Old Testament, we come today to some very practical questions. Having established the first principles that the Old Testament is truly the Word of God, that there is no one interpretive scheme that fits the whole Old Testament, and that assigning a high value to the Old Testament texts was a characteristic of patristic exegesis, we can go on to consider some further questions in our approach to these sacred books.

To what degree are Old Testament principles applicable in the New Testament age?

Our first query is to what degree Old Testament principles are applicable today, in the New Testament age? There are many disputes on a range of topics that Old Testament passages can be invoked for. Let us look at some examples of how Old Testament principles may be invoked in contemporary debates.

A great example is the question of whether or not parents should employ corporal punishment in the discipline of their children. A great passage to cite is Proverbs 13:24, 

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he that loves him chastens him earnestly." 

Or suppose the question is on the justice of levying interest on loans. In that case, Psalm 15:1-2 may be invoked: 

"O Lord, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,and speak the truth from their heart; who do not lend money at interest,and do not take a bribe against the innocent." 

Perhaps we are debating whether there is a moral obligation to speak to friends and family we know to be committing grave sins. Then Ezekiel 3:18-21 is very appropriate: 

"If I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” and you give them no warning, or speak to warn the wicked from their wicked way, in order to save their life, those wicked persons shall die for their iniquity; but their blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and they do not turn from their wickedness, or from their wicked way, they shall die for their iniquity; but you will have saved your life. Again, if the righteous turn from their righteousness and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before them, they shall die; because you have not warned them, they shall die for their sin, and their righteous deeds that they have done shall not be remembered; but their blood I will require at your hand. If, however, you warn the righteous not to sin, and they do not sin, they shall surely live, because they took warning; and you will have saved your life."

It is not our purpose here to answer these particular inquiries, but rather to point out examples of arguments in which Old Testament passages may be relevant.

The question then becomes "How relevant are they?" Some do not treat them as relevant at all. Suppose you are in a debate about whether parents ought to use corporal punishment and you cite Prov. 13:24 in support of the proposition. Now suppose your interlocutor says, "I hardly think we can settle the argument by quoting a passage from Proverbs." The interlocutor clearly has a dismissive attitude towards the contemporary relevance of Old Testament texts.

It is true that, in many parts of the Old Testament, doctrine is not strictly established. This is because of the provisional and incomplete nature of Old Testament revelation itself. We cannot build a complete doctrine of God from the Old Testament alone, since there is no revelation of the Incarnation or the Trinity. 

But the fact that the Old Testament is provisional or that certain doctrines are shadowy or incomplete does not mean that no doctrinal or ethical conclusions can be drawn from it at all. Sure, there is no revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, but there are very clear affirmations of God's omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. In fact, if I had to argue those attributes of God from the Bible, I would take the text of Psalm 139 as my starting point. The whole truth might not be affirmed, but what is affirmed is certainly true. Thus, the Old Testament is very valuable for serving as a foundation or jumping off point for particular theological discussions.

This brings us to the answer to our question - while the whole truth might not be asserted in the Old Testament because of its provisional nature, what is asserted must be held as the Word of God and therefore most assuredly true. The Church has never suggested that assertions of the Old Testament are somehow not binding because they are found in the Old Testament. Leo XIII famously taught:

"It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost" (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

Now it often happens that an Old Testament teaching must be completed or clarified in the New, like the laws regarding divorce or polygamy. These are cases of behavior tolerated (but never affirmed) in the Old being specifically proscribed in the New. But if something is positively affirmed in the Old, then how can we argue it is not relevant now, since every book of the Scriptures is inspired "with all their parts"?

Thus, if someone says corporal punishment is always wrong, I believe they err, and that they err precisely because Proverbs 13:24 specifically commends it. When Aquinas is formulating the classical Catholic doctrine on usury, he appeals to Exodus 22:25 and Ezekiel 18:17 as his scriptural basis. (STh, II-II, Q. 78). These positions can be established on Old Testament foundations.

What we must realize is that while the Old Testament overall is provisional in nature, not every particular Old Testament maxim is provisional; some are universal - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul and all they strength" (Deut. 6:5), for example. The Old Testament contains many principles that are reflections of natural law or very basic theological truths (the immorality of adultery, the right of parents to discipline children corporally, the omnipotence of God, etc). Because these principles do not cease to be true just because they are found in the Old Testament, they are always valid, and saints and scholars, such as Aquinas, have never balked at citing them not only in support of their arguments, but as the centerpiece of their arguments.

Aquinas would have never envisioned an argument in which his teaching on usury was thrown out because it cited the Old Testament. He had a much more unified approach to the Scriptures than we.

How to distinguish between the temporary, ceremonial law and the permanent moral law?

Our previous answer presumes that we understand that there are some things in the Old Testament which are temporary in nature and others which have permanent validity. How is the Catholic to distinguish between the two?

We mentioned above the provisional nature of Old Testament revelation. This means it is fundamentally incomplete; it awaits the New Testament and Christ for its fulfillment. But nevertheless, it still is a real and true revelation, and to say it is incomplete is not to say that things fundamentally change in the New Testament. After all, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" and God has "no variation or shadow due to change."(Heb. 13:8, Jas. 1:17). This is why Old Testament principles can retain a permanent validity, especially when they touch upon issues of the natural or moral law (For example, Malachi 2:16, '"I hate divorce', says the Lord").

The major exception to this, however, is if we are looking at passages of the Mosaic Law specifically. Too often the Old Testament is equated with the Law, as if the entire Old Testament were nothing but the Law. The Law, however, refers specifically to the ceremonial statutes enjoined upon Israel by God in the time of Moses, as found in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. If something, say a particular law or regulation is specifically part of the Levitical Law, we may safely assume it has been superseded by the New Testament. Examples of this are prohibitions on pork, the practice of circumcision, regulations about Temple worship, etc. These have all been superseded because they concern the Levitical law exclusively.

Principles that are part of the moral law, natural law, or are teachings on the very nature of God Himself retain a permanent validity, whereas principles that relate exclusively to the Levitical law of ancient Israel are no longer binding. Inability to make this distinction is the source of many errors, for example, the argument that Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality are invalid because the Old Testament also prohibits the eating of shellfish (see here).

It sometimes happens, however, that we see a regulation of the Mosaic law encapsulating or affirming a universal moral principle. These situations can be particularly vexing. For example, the passage "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex. 22:18). If someone asks if this passage is still valid, then the answer would be both yes and no. Yes, insofar as God hated witchcraft then and He still hates it now, and it is just as sinful now to participate in witchcraft today as it was then; but no insofar as we are no longer under the Mosaic law, and as such, the particular injunction to put the witch to death as a civil crime is no longer in force.

So we see that there are occasions where just because the particular law or regulation has passed away does not mean that the principle is invalid. Ex. 22:18 teaches that witchcraft is not pleasing to God; this has not changed, even if the particular discipline of how it is handled has. Thus, a person would be in grave error if they tried to argue that witchcraft was now pleasing to God based on the fact that we no longer are commanded to put witches to death.

We will continue with more on this topic next time.

Study Onto Salvation

Praying, fasting and almsgiving, the three eminent good works. Blessed is the man that studies to perfect these three parts of his Christian life. Those 10 and strict commandments, blessed is the man who keeps these perfectly and who has the love of the Father and the company of our Lord constantly.  John 14:23  

It is interesting to note how many great Saints were illiterate and yet so perfect in virtue and full of wisdom.  For example, St Anthony of the Desert never learned how to read or write, and yet he came to a great understanding of virtue through its constant practice and imitation of those around him who exceeded him in virtue. (To hear more on the life of St Anthony of the Desert, check out our new Audiobook on his struggles with demons!)

It seems to have become like an echo that continues to reverberate throughout the Catholic world in recent times “Know your faith” or “We have to study our faith”.  In my limited experience of going about to Catholic gatherings or listening to recordings  of various conferences and homilies, it is normally one of the primary solutions presented to the crisis in the Church proposed to the faithful.

The exhortation to come to know one’s faith is a good one. Faith most certainly comes from hearing Romans 10:17 and all scripture is useful for teaching 2 Tim 3:16:17. But just like prayers can be said out of self love or out of a desire to be seen, fasting for vanity, and almsgiving for human respect, study of the faith can become an occasion for curiosity, a source of pride, a distraction from duty, a departure from the cross.  Like any good thing, it must be subjected to reason, and it must have some specific end in mind.

 “Leave curious questions.  Study such matters as bring thee sorrow for sin rather than amusement.” The Imitation of Christ, Chapter 20 Of the love of solitude and silence.

It is fair to say that it does a man no good to memorize all the scriptures, or have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Catechism when he offends God by his life by breaking the commandments.  We shall know if our study is motivated from the desire to please God if it is done with the mind of conquering sin, growing in virtue, the defense of His honor, or the perfecting of a good work.

If you feel irritation at me because you believe such a thing is obvious, let me explain why I mentioned it.  Ever know a Catholic apologist who could not guard his tongue from bad speech?  How about Catholic bloggers who cannot help themselves at slandering and attacking others?  Or  knowing a person who, after studying theology, feels more comfortable in committing sins because they better understand the distinctions between mortal and venial sins? (This is explicitly mentioned as a problem in Outlines for Asceticism for Seminarians by FJ Remeler, a pre-Vatican II textbook)

I’m sure you could think of your own examples.  The truth is that the world, the flesh and the devil will do anything to interfere with the keeping and perfecting of the commandments and of our own prayer, fasting and almsgiving. God, in order to confound His enemy, allows us to be tested (like He did with St Anthony) but He is present during the struggle of his faithful. “The Lord is as a man of war, Almighty is His Name.” Exodus 15:3

“Let this especially be the common aim of all, neither to give way having once begun, nor to faint in trouble, nor to say: We have lived in the discipline a long time: but rather as though making a beginning daily let us increase our earnestness”  St Anthony of the Desert

Whenever we pick a work to study, hear a homily, or observe virtuous actions let us strive to make practical resolutions to become more pleasing to God, especially by more strictly keeping the commandments and perfecting good works.  By doing this, God Himself will teach you “And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from Him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as His unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in Him.” 1 John 2:27

No matter what one does - apologetics, teaching catechism, instructing home-schooled children, or just being a good neighbor - this is the means of study that gives glory to God's kingdom and draws others to Christ our King.

“And it is [the interior life] important to us not only as individuals, but also in our social relations; for it is evident that we can exert no real or profound influence upon our fellow-men unless we live a truly interior life ourselves” The Three Conversions of the Spiritual Life, Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP

So let us not run to study to find excuses to break commandments, avoiding dry prayer, enduring hunger and or suffering deprivation. “So let us daily abide firm in our discipline, knowing that if we are careless for a single day the Lord will not pardon us, for the sake of the past, but will be wrath against us for our neglect.” St Anthony of the Desert.