Sacramental Validity Under Sola Fide and According to the Gospel Promise

The Singular Divine Sacrament

promise[1].jpgIn this post I will examine what makes a sacrament “valid”, under the assumptions of the Lutheran Sola Fide.

Firstly, according to the Lutheran Sola Fide, there is in actual fact only one single sacrament: The preaching of the Gospel promise. This sacramental promise is effective ex opere operato in the sense that the promise is unconditional, and therefore God himself guarantees the fulfilment of the promise, and our response to that promise in the meantime cannot thwart his sovereign will in doing so. However in order for the promise to take effect at the present time and be successfully applied, it needs to be fully trusted by the person to whom the promise is spoken.

But what is the promise? The promise is God himself, the final glorious moment of history, the eschaton. From a Christian perspective, the promise is the resurrected Jesus Christ himself, revealed to the world as a pledge of things to come, and as the gateway through which we may access those good things right now in this present moment. When someone speaks the promise to another, they are bestowing God himself through their speaking, and it depends on the freedom of the listener as to whether or not the divine promise (God himself) will penetrate into their mind, heart and soul.

The Islamic principle of Tahwid and it’s manifestation as the classical theistic principle of divine simplicity apply to the promise just as much as they apply to God, due to this equivalence between the promise and God himself. So in a certain mystical sense, God is the promiser, God is the one to whom the promise is spoken, and God is the promise itself, and these three are all equivalent. Whenever one person proclaims the promise to another person, God is promising God to God. This is in fact a way of framing the Trinitarian relationship: The Father is the one who promises, The son is the promise itself, and the Spirit is the sacramental act of proclaiming the promise. (Notice the similarities to the classical/Nicaean “Father, Word/λογος, divine generation” Trinitarian construal). According to divine simplicity, God speaks his promise corporately to the entire creation, however he personalises this promise for individuals through the preaching and proclamation of the Gospel promise by those individuals.

But what IS the promise?

54c1321e40688_150124PreachingCAB.jpgThis is all very mystical however. So what does this singular sacrament look like in day to day preaching and evangelism? Well, it is different every time, but essentially always looks something like this:

“I am really with you, I love you, I will never leave you, I will always forgive you, I will save you, I will help you to forever escape the darkness and enter into the light, I will not be saved without you.”

A believer has the power to speak this fundamental sacramental promise with authority and conviction, on behalf of God, to someone who remains wandering in the outer darkness. As already mentioned, the promise is unconditional, guaranteed, and ex opere operato. However in order for the promise to actually bear fruit in the life of the person who hears it, that person must respond in faith. And so we come to the “Requirements for validity” with respect to the sacrament.

In order for the sacrament to be administered with validity, all that is required is

  1. The minister must actively intend to proclaim the divine promise to a sinner.
  2. The sinner must understand the promise and it’s full implications with their mind and intellect.
  3. The recipient must freely trust the promise with their heart and will.

These three points together are the absolute minimum that is required for the sacrament to be valid and efficacious.

Relevant questions may be raised at this point: Who is a valid minister of the sacrament? The minimum answer is “Anyone”. Literally anyone can proclaim the promise to anyone else. However it is “more perfect” (Or sunnah, as Muslims would say) firstly for the minister himself to be a believer in the promise (although this is not strictly necessary), and also for the sacrament to be administered by whoever possesses the highest degree of ordination in any given situation. So for example, in an emergency where a Hindu and Muslim are stuck in a desert and by some miracle both of them come to believe the promise, they have permission and power to speak the promise to each other with divine authority. In another situation, where there are many bishops available, the bishops should perform the sacrament. If there are no bishops, priests will suffice, and so on.

Roughly speaking, the preferential hierarchy which should be followed in the administration of the sacrament is

  1. Pope
  2. Archbishop
  3. Bishop
  4. Priest
  5. Deacon
  6. Subdeacon
  7. One who is confirmed
  8. One who is baptised
  9. One who himself believes the promise
  10. Anyone else

A Gospel Fiqr

keep-calm-and-follow-the-sunnah-2[1].pngIn Islamic terminology, what has been described so far falls under the category of Fard (ie. Obligatory). However there is also the category of Sunnah (ie. Preferred but not essential), which represents conditions which make the sacrament “more perfect”. Sunnah requirements should always be followed if possible. They are not optional, in the sense that you cannot just dispense with them at your whim and pleasure, however they are not strictly necessary, in the sense that during an emergency they may be dispensed with.

This is the point where the traditional seven sacraments come into play, as well as other unique sacramental economies such as the Later Day Saint system of ordinances. Each of these “traditional” sacraments and ordinances are in actual fact merely concrete manifestations of the one single sacrament already described. I will elaborate on how this is the case shortly.

The Sunnah requirements for all of these sacraments and ordinances are described in the various apostolic Christian traditions that are to be found throughout the world: Coptic, Byzantine, Latin, West Syrian, East Syrian, Armenian, Mormon, Lutheran, Anglican etc. And even within these apostolic traditions there are variations in the rulings and laws that are followed, for example in the Byzantine churches there are many major and minor variations in how the sacraments are performed. A broad example would be how Western Christians consider it Sunnah to use unleavened bread during the Eucharist, whereas Eastern Christians consider it Sunnah to use leavened bread. Another example would be how Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran Christians consider it to be Sunnah to baptise by merely sprinkling water on the head of the catechumen or baby in the shape of a cross, whereas many other Christians consider it to be Sunnah and essential to baptise by full immersion. The Latter Day Saints, in their interpretation of Christian law, take this particular requirement so seriously that they actually consider a baptism to be invalid if even a single hair remains above the water.

Let’s examine how the singular sacramental promise manifests under the form of the traditional seven sacraments

The Sacraments

Baptism

502016177_univ_lsr_xl[1].jpgBaptism manifests the promise and intends to convey “Spiritual cleanliness”, “Justification”, “Forgiveness”, “Entry into the New Creation (Eschaton)”. The symbolism is that of dying as one goes under the water, and resurrecting as they come out of the water. (Clearly the symbolism gets a bit muddied in the Christian traditions which don’t practice baptism by immersion)

Requirement for validity:

As long as the minister intends to convey the promise (ie, to forgive, clean and justify), it doesn’t actually matter whether you use water or the Trinitarian formula (“I baptise you in the name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit”). So baptisms which don’t involve water and don’t use the correct formula are in actual fact still valid. However remember the Sunnah requirements. If you want to perform the sacrament in accord with the rules of sacramental perfection, you should follow an apostolic tradition, and use water and the Trinitarian formula. However in a pinch, any liquid or substance that can be sprinkled will do; the exact words used don’t matter, and the only requirements for validity are those that were spelt out earlier in this article for the singular sacrament of promise.

Confession

Confession3-258x258[1].jpgConfession is a sacramental reminder of the promise that was spoken during baptism. It is referred to as the promise of absolution, because in this sacrament the promise is applied specifically to wash away guilt. When we confess our sins and receive the promise of absolution, it is a reminder of the one, single promise that we are loved by God, and he will never abandon us, and generally speaking trusting in this promise leads to an absolution of guilt. After confession, you simply don’t feel guilty any more, you feel free, because you trust the promise that was spoken. Unfortunately many scrupulous Catholics don’t realise that this promise is eternal, and they end up sinning the moment they leave the confessional, forgetting the promise, and thus returning to the state of feeling horrible, soul crushing guilt.

Requirements for validity:

Traditionally, Catholics and Orthodox have understood this sacrament to require a validly ordained priest. However according to the generic rules of validity outlined earlier, this is not strictly necessary, and anyone can validly absolve anyone else in an emergency. However, when striving to follow the Christian tradition perfectly and observe the Sunnah, it is important to leave the administration of this sacrament up to the highest ranked ordained ministers who are present. So if there are priests available, leave this sacrament to them.

As long as the minister intends to speak the promise of absolution and forgiveness, it doesn’t actually matter what formula is used. But if striving to follow Sunnah, it is appropriate to use the Trinitarian formula (“I absolve you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”)

Confirmation

index.jpegConfirmation is the sacrament where election and predestination are promised, via the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Someone who is confirmed has received the promise that God will never abandon them until they successfully arrive in the eschaton.

Requirements for validity:

As with Confession, as long as the minister intends to promise election and predestination, the sacrament is valid; and so long as the one being confirmed trusts the promise, the sacrament is efficacious. There is no specified minimum form and matter. So it doesn’t matter what substance is used (traditionally holy chrism) and it doesn’t matter what sacramental words are spoken, so long as the promise is conveyed and understood correctly. However again, it is more appropriate to use an apostolic verbal formula and holy oil during the administration of this sacrament. In accordance with the apostolic Christian Sunnah.

Again, it does not ultimately matter who performs this sacrament. A Hindu can confirm a Muslim. However it is more appropriate for the highest ranking cleric present to do it. So in the absence of a bishop, leave it to a priest. In the absence of a priest, leave it to a deacon, and so on.

Last rites

index (1).jpegLast rites serves as a reminder of the promise at the most crucial moment of a persons life: right before they are about to die. The process of dying is a final battle, where Satan and all his demons swoop in and do battle with Michael and all his angels. The Devil accuses the person who is dying of all of their sins, and so it is helpful for a person to have the gospel promise fresh in their memory as armour and a weapon against this onslaught of evil and temptation.

Requirements for validity:

So long as the minister intends to remind the dying sinner of the gospel promise, the general rules of validity outlined earlier are all that matter: There must be intent, understanding, and faith. And anyone is a valid minister. But to perform the sacrament perfectly it should be done according to the rubrics of a valid apostolic tradition.

Eucharist

eucharist[1].jpgThe Eucharist manifests the promise for the purpose of giving us a tangible direction of worship, and symbolising our unity with the divine via eating. The particular aspect of the promise that is emphasised is “I am truly with you. And I am uniting myself to you”.

Whenever a consecrated host is eaten by a believer, the heavenly sacrifice and heavenly liturgy are made present. However this sacrifice and liturgy is made more perfectly present by the observation of a rich and symbolic liturgical rite. Such liturgical rites can indeed be invented out of thin air (As Vatican II demonstrated), but respect for tradition is key, and it is preferable to observe a traditional liturgy.

Requirements for validity:

As long as the minister intends to really, truly, tangibly make God present under a manifest/mundane form, this sacrament is valid. Importantly, there is no necessary prescription for form and matter: so it is possible to consecrate literally any object. Rice, wine, bread, whiskey, icecream. Even a rock or a painting could be validly consecrated. However if the consecration is occurring in the context of the mass, the matter should be something edible. Of course there are prudential considerations, such as choosing a substance that doesn’t crumble and won’t be abused. So even though it is possible to consecrate icecream, this is a bad idea as it will lead to Eucharistic desecration as the icecream melts. As before, the exact minister of the sacrament does not matter: it could be a priest or a lay person. Ordination is not necessary. And the words of institution are not necessary either, just so long as the promise and message is accurately conveyed. (There is actually already an apostolic precedent for this view in the Assyrian Church of the East. They do not include the words of institution in their liturgy, and yet it is still recognised as valid by the Catholic magisterium)

These flexible requirements allow a more permanent object to be consecrated for the purpose of extended adoration, such as a crystal or golden statue. At the same time they allow for a wide variety of edible substances to be consecrated, to cater to different allergies and dietary restrictions that recipients of the sacrament may be subject to.

Of course, to follow the requirements of Sunnah, the classical sacramental words of institution should be employed (“This is my body, this is my blood”), and bread and wine should be chosen for the elements. And as per usual, the highest ranking ordained minister should perform the rite. Furthermore, the rubrics of the liturgical rite should be followed as closely as possible, with the correct vestments, hymns, readings and so on chosen. But none of this is necessary, merely preferred.

Marriage

married-by-mom-and-dad-arranged-marriage.jpegMarriage is when two spouses speak the promise to each other as individuals. Firstly the groom acts as God in promising salvation and fidelity to his wife, and then the bride acts as God in doing the same back to her new husband. Mystically speaking, this sacrament is the most perfect manifestation of the fact that “God promises salvation to God”.

Requirements for Validity:

The husband must intend to promise “I love you and will never leave you until you are saved” to his wife, and vice versa. Gay marriage becomes possible, as well as polygamy and polyamory. No special words are mandated, just so long as the promise is accurately conveyed and trusted by both partners.

Of course to perform the sacrament according to the Sunnah of apostolic Christianity, the groom and bride should both use the “I marry you” sacramental formula and follow whatever other rules are specified by the Christian tradition in question. For example, according to most traditional strands of Christianity, marriage is Sunnah when it is between a man and a woman, but not when it is between two people of the same sex.

Note that under these flexible requirements, it is technically possible for children to validly get married. But obviously there are Sunnah restrictions on this practice, as there are lots of ethical concerns and issues.

Holy orders

ordination[1].jpgHoly Orders is actually very similar to the Eucharist, however instead of an inanimate object being consecrated and transubstantiated, a human person becomes consecrated and transubstantiated, in such a way that they manifest God and divine authority for the benefit of some community.

Requirements for Validity:

The minister performing the ordination must intend to promise to some third party that they possess the divine authority, and the community must trust that promise. This bestowal of authority more perfectly makes present God to a community. The promise in this case is similar to the Eucharistic promise: “This is (or represents) God; trust him!”

Again, it doesn’t matter who ordains who for validity. So an isolated community can validly raise up an ordained leader from amongst themselves in an emergency. However to follow the Sunnah of the apostolic traditions, the person performing the ordination should be in the line of apostolic succession and higher in authority than the person being ordained.

Interestingly, the validity of the ordination depends on the recognition of that authority by a community. If a priest were to travel to a foreign country and try to exercise his priestly authority in a community other than the one in which he was ordained, he may very well be laughed at. Authority demands recognition, or it is no authority at all.

Interestingly, it becomes possible for someone to be ordained directly by God, apart from apostolic succession. Allegedly this happened in the case of Saint Paul and Joseph Smith. And it becomes possible for an isolated community to raise up a bishop (or perhaps even a pope) ex nihilo.

This principle lends validity to religious hierarchies that naturally develop all around the world. Muslims tend to raise up imams and sheiks from amongst their own ranks, and this is a form of sacramental ordination apart from the Christian traditions. It is the same with Hinduism and Buddhism. Wherever strong, religious leadership emerges, there is usually a valid expression of sacramental ordination in play. Mormon Apostles and Prophets are therefore just as validly ordained as Catholic bishops and priests, and there can technically be more than one Pope, as the authority of the Pope depends on the recognition of the people. However at the top of every hierarchy, whether religious or secular, there is only one God. So above the Pope, and above the Ayatollah, and above the Queen, and above the American President, there is God. Democracy is a form of secular ordination that may or may not have a certain sacramental character, as leaders are chosen by the people and raised up from the people.

Ecumenical Solutions

God

I recently came to a syncretic and synthetic understanding of how all the various disparate religious doctrines concerning God can be reconciled. With the aid of two diagrams lets walk through them.

To the Nestorian controversy

Nestorianism is correct
All of us (including Jesus) are distinct from the divine logos by identity.
Orthodoxy is correct
However Jesus IS the logos “via incarnation” and all of us BECOME the logos via sacramental theosis.

To the Christological controversy

Dyophysitism is correct
The created attributes (nature) of the logos are distinct from it’s divine attributes (nature) by identity.
Miaphysitism is correct
However the created attributes/nature of the logos are inseparable from the divine attributes/nature by hypostatic union.
Monophysitism is correct
Furthermore the negative/evil/imperfect created attributes are swallowed up by the positive/good/perfect attributes by substitutionary atonement.

To the Arian crisis

Arianism is correct
Formally prior to being generated by the essence, the logos has the attribute of “non existence”, but formally subsequent to generation it has the attribute of “existence”. Therefore “There was a time when the word was not” on account of the distinctions of formal priority.
Catholicism is correct
However the logos transcends existence and non-existence, and in it’s unity with the ineffable essence it is both and neither simultaneously by divine simplicity.

To the Filioque

Orthodoxy is correct
The spirit proceeds from the father alone according to the strict distinctions between the hypostases.
Catholicism is correct
However the spirit also proceeds from all of the hypostases simultaneously as God begets God and God proceeds from God according to divine simplicity.

To the essence-energies/created Grace controversy

Orthodoxy is correct
The essence is distinct from the energies according to the strict distinctions between the hypostases.
Catholicism is correct
However the essence and energies are also identical by divine simplicity and perichoresis.

To the Controversy over the identity of the one God

Islam and Judaism are correct
Jesus is the one “Lord” and the Father is the one “God”. The son is not the father, therefore the the Lord is not God, therefore Jesus is not God and only the father can be referred to as the one God by strict identity.
Christianity is correct
However Jesus can also be correctly referred to as God due to the divine simplicity and miaphysis

To the Muʿtazila and Ash’ari dispute over the essence and attributes of Allah

Ash’ari is correct
The Essence of God is distinct from the attributes of God according to strict distinction.
Muʿtazila is correct
However the essence of God is also identical with the attributes of God and the attributes are identical to each other by the Tawhid of divine simplicity.

To the Bhaktic and Vedantic divide over the relationship between Atman and Brahman

Bhakti is correct
The Atman is distinct from Brahman according to strict distinction.
Vedanta is correct
However the Atman is identical with Brahman by divine simplicity.
God2

Ecclesiology – Communion and Schism

“What is the church?” It’s a simple question with a by-no-means simple answer. Protestant ecclesiology is fairly simple: “The church is wherever there are two or three believers gathered in the name of Christ” or “The church is all true believers around the world”. In the Protestant account of things, the church is entirely invisible: it is not associated with any particular group or institution. In comparison to this simple and straightforward understanding, Catholic ecclesiology is a fascinating, complex topic.

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church

300px-THE_FIRST_COUNCIL_OF_NICEA[1].jpgThe four marks of the church enumerated by the Nicene creed are “One”, “Holy”, “Catholic” and “Apostolic”. This is a helpful starting point. In my understanding, the two most important marks are “One” and “Apostolic”.

To say that the church is “One” is a statement of numerical oneness: there are not two churches; there are not three churches; there is only one church. However to say that the church is “One” is not necessarily a statement of internal unity. I will return to this point later, but for now it suffices to say that not everyone who is in communion with the church fully agrees with and understands everything that the church teaches.

To say that the church is “Apostolic” is to say that the leadership of the church are able to trace a straight line of succession back through history via the laying on of hands all the way down to the Apostles and Jesus himself. A church must be led by a bishop, and this bishop must be able to trace his authority back through previous bishops all the way to the Apostles.

To say that the church is “Catholic” is to say that the church is universal: That is, the church is not tied down to any particular language or culture or ethnicity; everyone is welcome. It also implies that the church is the rightful owner of all truth, wherever it may be stumbled upon. Anything true and beautiful is universal, Catholic truth, even if such truth and beauty is found in non-Christian philosophies or other, totally different religions.

Additional Marks

Now, there are some other “lesser” marks of the church which were not included in the Nicene creed, but are nevertheless considered important in Catholic ecclesiology: In addition to the four marks, the Church is also “Visible”, “Eucharistic” and “Monarchical”.

To say that the church is “Visible” is to say that it is possible to identify the church in a tangible, physical sense. How this plays out in the Catholic understanding is that any given diocese IS the one true church, provided that the bishop who governs that diocese has valid apostolic succession. There is only one single church in the entire world, however that one single church manifests all over the world in the form of the many and various dioceses. Now, there are many dioceses, but there are not many churches, there is only one. In any case, each and every diocese, headed by a bishop who has been validly ordained, represents a concrete manifestation in a particular place of the one true church.

Monstrance-Cut-Out[1].jpgTo say that the Church is “Eucharistic” is merely an implication of the fact that the church is “Visible” and “Apostolic”: A bishop who has valid holy orders has the power and authority to consecrate bread and wine and transubstantiate them into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This Eucharist is God himself coming to us under a visible form. Christians gather around this visible, physically tangible presence of God. The Eucharist is a focal point of church unity; those who share in the lord’s supper together enjoy a profound spiritual communion with God and with each other; they become “one body of Christ, in Christ”. The Eucharist transforms the church from merely being an impersonal organisation and an impassionate institution, into being a lively community of faithful human individuals, united together in a profound love.

The final mark of the church is the mark of Monarchy, and this is the most contentious mark of all, representing a stumbling block to many, both Christian and non-Christian. To say that the church is “Monarchical” is to say that the church has a single, supreme leader. As before mentioned, at the level of a diocese, the supreme leader is the bishop or archbishop. However at the level of the entire, mystical body of Christ spread throughout the world, the supreme leader is the successor of Peter: the Catholic Pope.

Two Kinds of Schism

jIvJLxy[1].jpgI mentioned before that the church being “One” does not imply strict unity. Within the church there are disagreements and dissensions. These disagreements and dissensions wound and damage the unity of the church, without totally destroying that unity. In recent years, the Catholic church has come to call this situation “partial communion”: within the church there has been a split between two parties, however this split does not represent a total destruction of unity between those two parties; they are still united, but imperfectly. This is indeed a schism, but it is a schism within the church: the two parties involved have not actually separated themselves from the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.

There is, however, another sort of schism. This would be a schism of separation. Such a schism would be one in which the two parties involved disagree at such a fundamental level that one of the parties has actually separated itself from communion with the church entirely.

What would lead to these schisms coming about? In the case of the first kind of schism – that of a schism within the church – all that would be required is for the church in full communion with the Pope to declare an ecumenical dogma, and for the remainder of the church to refuse to assent to that dogma. Such a refusal to assent does not necessarily constitute an explicit, dogmatic rejection of the dogma in question, and therefore does not lead to a total cutting off from the one, true church. However such a refusal to assent does represent a division within the church, because there are people within the church who are not “on the same page” as the rest of the church. Such a schism can therefore be referred to as a schism of non-assent, and it represents a situation of “partial communion” between two parties: the communion has not been destroyed, but it has been wounded.

beware-dogma[1]On the other hand, if the party not in full communion with the Pope were to come together and formulate their own dogmatic statements which flatly contradict the dogmas of the church in full communion with the Pope, the communion between the two parties would be entirely severed. This would not merely be an implicit or tentative rejection of Catholic dogma, it would instead represent a final and definitive rejection of the truth. Such a schism would lead to the actual separation of the dissenting party from the one true church. This would no longer be a schism within the church; it would be an actual separation of one church into two churches, one valid and one invalid. I call this a schism of dissent.

An Abolition of Authority

Remember that one of the marks of the church is that it is monarchical: It has a supreme leader, the successor of Peter, and you must be in at least partial communion with him in order to be said to be a member of the one true church. If you damage your communion with him, it’s not the end of the world, as this is a schism of non-assent and therefore does not exclude you from communion. But what happens if you completely destroy your communion?

I suspect that a community which were to fully and completely destroy its communion with the one true church – in such a way that there is not any communion remaining – would lose it’s authority to perform the sacraments. I suspect that such a community’s Eucharist would become invalid, and their holy orders would be nullified. The reason why is that they have completely cut themselves off from the head of the church. All sacramental power flows from Christ to the Pope to the bishops. To completely cut yourself off from the Pope is to completely cut yourself off from Christ.

The Great Schisms

Now lets apply all these reflections to the actual history of the church.

MA_East_west_schism[1].jpgThe first major schism was with the Church of the East, sometimes known as “The Nestorian church”. Was this schism a schism of non-assent, or was it a schism of dissent? From my reading of history, it seems to me that it was merely a schism of non-assent, because the church of the east never produced a counter dogma, and therefore at the institutional level the Church of the East never definitively denied any Catholic dogmas. And so the Church of the East did not therefore cut itself off entirely from the Pope. In this way, their sacraments remained valid, and their dioceses continued to represent visible manifestations of the one true church. This was a schism within the church.

The next big schism was with the group of churches who in the modern era are referred to as the “Oriental Orthodox” churches. From my reading of history, this too was a schism of non-assent. The Oriental Orthodox could not bring themselves to assent to the Christological statements of Chalcedon. Despite the fact that they disagreed with the dogmas, this disagreement was never expressed in final, dogmatic terms of their own. In this way, their sacraments remained valid, and their dioceses continued to represent visible manifestations of the one true church. This too was a schism within the church.

img_1215[1]Next was the most famous schism of all: the East-West schism, sometimes referred to as “The Great Schism”. This was between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Catholics. It’s actually hard to pin down exactly when and how this schism occurred; many dates are given, sometimes as early as 400AD, sometimes as late as 1800AD, the most common date given is 1058 but there is not unanimous agreement on this. The fact that it is so ambiguous when this schism actually occurred is quite a significant hint that this too was not a schism which lead to a total separation of communion. At no point did the east ever produce a counter dogma which contradicted the dogmas of the Western ecumenical councils, so this schism, if it ever actually happened, was also a schism of non-assent. The eastern sacraments remained valid, and their dioceses continued to represent visible manifestations of the one true church.

Things were different with the protestant reformation. During the protestant reformation, both apostolic succession and the Eucharist were abandoned. These are essential aspects of the one true church, and without them, unity is entirely severed. The protestants cannot even be said to be in partial communion. Their communion has been entirely abolished. There is still a sense in which we have communion with them, but it is a virtual communion based on a limited degree of shared belief, rather than the robust communion enjoyed by members of the one true church. Such a virtual communion is also shared with atheists and members of other religions. Everyone is connected to the church to a greater or lesser extent, but it is only those communities which possess the 7 marks of the church which can be said to enjoy a real communion.

ID_episode64_MH_3[1].jpgFurther solidifying the point is that the reformation schism was a schism of dissent: many of the reformation churches produced their own statements of faith, which explicitly and dogmatically bound members of those communities to a rejection of Catholic dogma. The situation is complicated by the fact that reformation churches do not even officially believe in in the concept of dogma, and so it is hard to say whether or not their rejection of Catholic dogmas constitutes a final, irreformable and irreconcilable rejection. It is therefore ambiguous whether or not these churches are in a schism of dissent or merely schism of non-assent. However their rejection of apostolic succession and the Eucharist is sufficient to entirely break down communion. Protestants are not members of the one true church.

Final Words

In conclusion, The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East together represent one single church. All of the dioceses of these institutions represent manifestations of the one true church in a particular place and for a particular culture. All of these institutions have valid sacraments, and gather around a valid Eucharist. These institutions are in a state of schism with each other, but this is a schism within the church, and does not represent a real split of one church into many churches. The schism is merely one of non-assent, and therefore does not represent a total break in communion. The communion has been wounded, and this is not an ideal situation, however the communion has not been wounded beyond a point where ecumenical repair is possible.

21414maininfocusimage[1].jpgI want to re-emphasise the importance of being in at least partial communion with the successor of Peter: Without maintaining a level of communion with the successor of Peter, apostolic succession is nullified and the Eucharist is therefore invalidated. The Orthodox churches are all in partial communion with the Pope, and this is enough to ensure that their sacraments are valid, however if they were to finally, definitively and entirely break from communion they would lose this privilege. Exactly this has happened with the protestants, and it makes the task of reunification infinitely harder. Pray for unity!

 

Testimony – Universalist to Priest

(Go to Part 1: “Agnostic to Christian”)

Last Days in the Desert

tsingtaodraft[1]Apart from my joyful realisation that I now believed in the one true gospel of Universal Salvation, my final month in Hong Kong was the worst and most painful of all. There was copious amounts of stress with Mindy and we were having insane amounts of sex. I didn’t even care any more, I was so depressed and despondent, and I felt as if my life was entirely out of my control. I ended up not even trying to resist, and for the first time I found myself actually actively seducing Mindy myself, rather than her seducing me as would usually happen. I was pounding back 3 fat cans of Tsing Tao Draft every night as a form of self-medication and I was constantly going to bed in a drunken haze.

Towards the end of our Sydney holiday – when my Psychologist had admonished me to return to Sydney permanently – I had informed Mindy of my decision to return to Australia. Mindy did not take it well at all, and immediately set about trying to control, coerce and manipulate me into changing my mind. By this point of the relationship, she had proven to be incredibly effective at getting me to agree with her (except on matters of faith) and she basically had me under her thumb, like a trained dog. She went through the usual routine and I pretended to relent and change my mind about going back to Sydney. Truth be told, she managed to exert enough influence over me to get me to seriously contemplate staying in Hong Kong. However one morning I received a facetime call from Mum and she was able to snap me out of it and recommit to the original plan. We agreed that it would be a good idea for my step father to actually come to Hong Kong and pick me up in person, so as to force me to board the plane back home and prevent Mindy from manipulating me into staying. We also agreed that I should keep these plans secret from Mindy, so that she couldn’t wear me down and change my mind.

Nevertheless, as April was drawing to a close and the date of my departure was approaching, Mindy discovered my plans to leave and went into crisis mode. She started organising emergency meetings with absolutely everyone: We met with Alan – her pastor from Living Grace church, Alex McCoy, and she even tried to organise a skype talk with Andrew Judd, the youth minister who was serving at my old church St Barnabas in Sydney, and who had agreed to perform the marriage ceremony for us back in Australia.

All three of these ministers sided with me and my doctors: they figured that the wisest course of action was to trust the professional advice and return to Sydney. Suicide and depression are serious business and not to be taken lightly.

During our final session with Alex McCoy, it came out that not only was I planning to leave Hong Kong, but my flight was scheduled to be 2 days later. It was at this point that Mindy completely freaked out, broke down and lost control of herself.

An Apocalyptic Tantrum

slide1[1].jpgAs we left Alex McCoys office, Mindy completely lost control. She started crying, screaming, saying that she wanted to kill herself and trying to run into the heavy traffic on Nathan Road. As she made motions to step in front of all the massive trucks and buses flying along the road at top speed, I would try to intercept her and grab her and prevent her from killing herself. As I did this, she would spin around and aim a solid kick at my groin. Passers by started to turn their heads in concern and check what was happening. I felt like I appeared to onlookers as some sort of rapist or predator, as I was grabbing her and trying to hold her and wrest her away from the oncoming traffic, while she was swearing at me and kicking my balls. It was incredibly awkward and embarrassing.

Eventually Mindy just ran away from me in tears and I trekked back to my flat at Yuen Long alone. I was worried and concerned about her, because she was behaving off the scale crazy and threatening suicide. My psychologist Alex Goymour had warned me that this might happen and prepared me with some strategies to deal with it. The first principle she told me was that you must always treat a threat of suicide seriously: never ever laugh it off or treat it as an empty threat, otherwise the person making the threat might just go ahead with it in order to prove their sincerity. With this in mind, I took Mindy’s threats of suicide seriously.

As I travelled home I received a constant stream of emotionally strung messages from Mindy. Once I was back in my flat I decided that I needed to contact the police because this was getting way out of hand. I did not know how to contact the police, so I went down to the lobby of my building and spoke to the security guard on duty. Unfortunately he didn’t know how to speak English and I struggled to communicate with him, but thankfully another resident of the building appeared and I was able to use her as an interpreter. The security guard contacted the police and filed a report concerning Mindy’s threats of suicide. He wrote down the number of the police and conveyed to me that they would get in contact with me.

I went back up to my flat and waited, all the while receiving crazy suicide threats from Mindy. I tried to stay calm and collected, and establish where exactly Minday was, so that I could tell the police if they ask. The most that I could gather was that she was in a high place. I didn’t know what that meant, but it made me imagine her jumping off a rooftop and falling to her death on the side walk. Eventually the police called me and we talked through the situation. The police had also got in direct contact with Mindy, which just made her even more crazy: she sent me a message “Why did you bring other people into this??? Why did you have to call the police??? This is between you and me!!!” I was refusing to play her game and submit to her manipulative tactics, and yet I still had to treat her suicide threats as genuine. I figured that introducing the police into the situation would serve as negative reinforcement and perhaps dissuade Mindy from ever trying this crap on again.

HK_YL_Yuen_Long_元朗_形點_Yoho_Mall_view_BT_Bus_Terminus_Nov-2015_DSC[1].JPGEventually Mindy materialised at Yuen Long station and informed me via whatsapp that she was on the way to my flat. I was extremely concerned about her and so went down and started walking towards the station so as to meet her. I ran into her on the long, blue bridge between Yoho Mall 1 and Yoho Mall 2. She was in a terrible state. She broke down crying and fell to the floor, holding my hand and refusing to let go. She started pleading with me like a spoilt toddler who wants her mum to buy her some expensive toy. “Pleeeeeease don’t go!!! Pleeeeeease stay!!! Don’t leave meeeeee!!!” She was sobbing and shaking and crying and screaming. There were tears streaming down her face and she was completely distraught. Naturally I was crying too: it was incredibly hard for me to hold it together under such emotional stress and while confronted with such a wreck of a fiancée. All I could say to her imploring and begging was “I can’t, I’m sorry.” I was emotionally exhausted and torn: A large part of me wanted to give in to this tantrum so that I don’t have to hurt her like this, but I knew that my step father was arriving the next day, and I knew that I had to go home, so I did not give in.

Mindy got herself somewhat together and we started moving back towards my flat. Suddenly she changed tactic. She started to get all aggressive and physical, hitting me and poking me forcefully while verbally attacking me and accusing me, trying to make me feel guilty. I just pushed her off me and refused to put up with her crap. We just stood there as a cloud of mosquitoes ate my legs.

Suddenly her phone was ringing: It was the police. They wanted to know if she had arrived at my flat. She calmly and collectedly informed them that she was with me and she was alright. The police considered her to be safe and that the case was closed. I thought to myself “Fuck“: She was definitely not safe and the case was definitely not closed. Now I was going to have to endure a whole night of stressful whining and complaining and suicide threats. This was Hell.

Around about 4am we eventually moved up to my flat and things settled down a bit. I don’t actually remember, but I suspect we ended up having some good make up sex to close the conflict, as we usually would after a big fight.

Arrival of a Saviour

The date that my stepfather arrived in Hong Kong happened to be his own birthday. My stepdad has been very good to me throughout my life, and this was a prime example of how much he cared for me. I had informed my Mum via text message of what had happened, how Mindy was completely distraught and falling apart, threatening suicide. With this in mind, my stepfather was expecting to meet a totally crazy Mindy when he got off the plane. But instead, Mindy managed to pull herself totally together and act as if everything was normal and nothing out of the ordinary had happened recently.

That evening all of us went to an awkward dinner with Mindy’s family. Her Mum and Dad who usually live in China were present, as well as her Grandmother. Mindy’s Dad quizzed me on whether I really do love Mindy and want to marry her. I honestly didn’t know, but what I did know is that I still wanted to be an honourable man who keeps his promises, and so I insisted that I still loved her and still wanted to marry her. I made yet another feeble promise to return to Hong Kong in a years time after I had recovered. I thought that love was an attitude, and if I couldn’t handle this relationship turmoil, then there’s no way I could ever handle a marriage. I thought that I had to push through.

170822062145-the-peak-tower[1].jpgOn the day of the flight, I had already wrapped up all my business with Aaron from butterfly milk and I had a whole day to kill. Me, Mindy and my Stepfather ended up trying to kill time by visiting “The Peak” –  an expensive shopping centre and lookout built on top of a mountain. Unfortunately on this day the Peak was shrouded by a thick cloud and we were unable to see the great view of Hong Kong that would usually be enjoyed from that point.

Rather than catch the bus or tram down the mountainside, we decided to walk the whole way down. My step father was not as young and fit as he used to be, and found the experience to be excruciating and painful. He has since said that he was completely baffled as to why we decided to do that: it was an intense physical strain which he really didn’t want to deal with.

At the end of the day, me and my step father boarded the flight back to Sydney, and I was finally escaping Hong Kong for good.

Return to Sydney

realms-opening.b0b0ae10199a[1].pngAfter returning to Sydney I ended up staying with Mum and my immediate family for a few weeks. I was still incredibly down and depressed at this point. I was very shaky and not myself. I remember feeling incredibly sad and distressed: when my younger brother Nicholas would talk to me non-stop about his cool new video games and awesome plans to build a mini metal foundry (and other such stuff that imaginative young boys get up to), I remember I would be completely zapped and lack the energy to engage with him and his excitement. I remember wishing he would shut up and piss off, which distressed me to no end because I really love my brother and I was distraught that in my depressed state I was unable to enjoy talking to him properly.

During my time at Mum’s house I would just binge on multiplayer Minecraft with my brothers. This was not exactly the healthiest way to spend my time and did absolutely nothing to help me emerge from my depression. I lacked joy, happiness and energy.

Eventually my Grandfather returned from holidays and said that I could come and live with him again. I thought it would be nice to live at the beaches again and to hang out with Gamps. Unfortunately it was not “just like old times”: I was no longer a 17 year old high school student, and the dynamic with Gamps was different. I felt like I had to be doing something productive at all hours of the day, otherwise I felt guilty and stressed. As such I had to force myself to look for jobs and do menial tasks around the house, but when you’re unemployed there’s only so much that you can actually do, so most of my time was spent sitting in my room, trying and failing not to read theology articles, while feeling incredibly stressed and guilty. Unemployment was Hell. The time ticked by incredibly slowly. I was still depressed and couldn’t imagine any job which I would actually be effective at.

I had a routine: Hang around at Gamps’ place not doing much during the week, then on Friday night travel to Mum’s house with my laptop and play video games with my brothers. On Sunday night I would travel into the city and attend mass at St Benedict’s. After mass I would catch the bus to the northern beaches and walk up the hill to Gamps’ house.

Return to WiseTech Global

wisetech-global-squarelogo-1511280461494[1].pngUnemployment was not doing anything to help my mental state, so I decided to apply for a job at one of my previous employers – WiseTech Global. Alex Eagles was working there, and I remembered some of the people who I was friendly with back in 2011/12: Matty B, Patty McP, Maciej Maciejewski, Brett Shearer, Baabar Khan. Even though I didn’t have much hope that this job would help me in any way, I figured anything was better than sitting around at home all day not doing anything. I smashed the interview and the programming test. Thankfully they were happy to have me back and I was able to slide right into a desk right next to Alex Eagles.

Unfortunately this also was not “just like old times”. Eagles was super focused on his career and didn’t have any time to hang out with me or have lunch with me: he was always having lunch with key figures in the company to talk about business strategies and whatever else. He was in networking mode.

I ended up reaching out and making contact with Patty McP and Maciej Maciejewski, both of whom I was friendly with back when I first worked at this company. Both of them remembered me and were happy to catch up. I ended up regularly having lunch with Pat and his friend Daniel, and we would talk about incredibly nerdy and geeky topics. I wasn’t particularly keen to talk about this stuff, but I was just happy to have someone to eat my lunch with so I endured it. I really wanted to talk about faith and theology with someone, as that was my passion and what I cared about, but no one in the office seemed to be interested in this topic. The only person who actually had even a slight interest in theology was an apostate homosexual guy who had studied at a Hillsong theological college. He was only interested in biblical matters if he was able to shoot them down.

Ever since my conversion to Catholicism, I had been starved for Catholic companionship. “Please God, give me some Catholic friends”: This had been my constant prayer for the past two years. I was so incredibly lonely. My prayer finally was answered in the form of Maciej Maciejewski. I was aware that Maciej was a Christian, but it wasn’t until I saw him wearing a world youth day T-shirt that I realised he was also Catholic. I reached out on the office skype network and let him know that I was Catholic too. After talking for a while, I remember him saying “Wait, you really are Catholic!”: Maciej was very much aware of the problem of nominalism within the church. A lot of people who claim to be Catholic aren’t really devout or faithful; for these people religion is an entirely cultural affair, not to be engaged in unless it is someone’s birthday, wedding or funeral. Me and Maciej were happy to connect over a shared faith and devotion in the office.

The Liturgy of All Ages

maternal_heart_mary[1].jpgDuring my time at WiseTech, I became curious about Latin Mass. I had heard that the Latin Mass still happened sometimes and in certain places, so I wondered if there was anywhere in Sydney that I could go to witness one. I googled it and found out that there was a parish nearby in Lewisham called “Maternal Heart of Mary Catholic Parish” which offered the Latin Mass. It just so happened that that night was the feast of the Assumption, which is a holy day of obligation in Sydney (meaning that Catholics are required to attend church on that day).

It was winter and I was wearing black jeans and a trenchcoat. I figured that this was formal enough to attend mass and after work prepared to trek to Lewisham. As I arrived in the parish courtyard, I noticed a mother with some children preparing to enter the church. From her accent I could tell that she was Irish. Her children were all incredibly well groomed and wearing suits. She was dressed incredibly modestly. I heard her whisper to her kids “Be respectful now; remember that this is Jesus’ house”. I was immediately impressed and struck by the reverential attitude that she was cultivating in her children.

As I entered the church, I looked around and was amazed at what I was seeing: all of the women were veiling their hair and were dressed in supremely modest attire. All of the men were wearing suits. Even the children were dressed as if they were going to a wedding. I was also shocked at the wide range of ages on display: I was expecting Latin Mass to be packed full of old codgers and withering hags, but instead I was seeing a church full of young, vibrant faces and many many children and infants. There were indeed a few elderly people in the pews, but the majority of the people in attendance seemed to be in their 20s and 30s.

PontificalMass06[1].jpgAnd then the mass actually started. I was blown away. It was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen, heard, smelt and tasted. The Gregorian chant was sublime, the incense was intoxicating, the movements of the priest, deacon and subdeacon were hypnotic and mesmerising. The elevation of the Host and the Chalice was accompanied by a beautiful chorus of bells, both big and small. The reverence amongst the congregation was unlike anything I had ever experienced before. The presence of God was tangible: When the priest held up the Host and the bells were ringing while the incense flooded the room, there was not a doubt in my mind that I was staring at the transubstantiated body and blood of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ. I was instantly hooked.

This Latin mass was such a pleasant surprise and unexpected joy for me, that I ended up attending again the following Sunday at 10:30am. As I approached the church, an older man standing outside immediately walked up to me and said hello. I was stunned: this had never happened to me before outside of a Protestant context. He introduced himself as Tony Pead. We got talking and he was incredibly friendly and jovial. We went in and found a seat for mass, and it was just as beautiful and wonderful as the last time. After it was over I exited the church and found the courtyard full with all of the parishioners: chatting and socialising and catching up with each other. Again, I was blown away: in two years of being Catholic I had never seen this before. I ended up meeting lots of people of a variety of ages and backgrounds. After hanging around in the courtyard for a little while, people packed into their cars and drove to the Empire Hotel just down the road for a feed and a drink. I was impressed at the fellowship. I was also impressed at the knowledge of these people: these were not lukewarm Catholics; they actually knew the faith and were zealous to defend it and propagate it!

maternal-heart[1]It seemed like my long suffering prayer had finally been answered: I had finally found a strong Catholic community! I started attending this mass every Sunday, rather than going to St Benedict’s. I even begun to attend evening Latin mass at Lewisham on Thursdays. I was still depressed, but spiritually I had finally found a home. It quickly became apparent to me that the Latin Mass is what Catholicism is all about; the limitations and drawbacks of the new vernacular mass suddenly became incredibly obvious. Suddenly I realised why I had felt so disillusioned for the past few years of my Catholic journey. This was what I was missing. The eternal liturgy and the faithful Catholics who congregate around it. I had always wondered to myself why I seemed to be the only devout Catholic that I knew; everyone else seemed entirely nominal and apathetic. I finally knew why: all of the faithful Catholics congregate around the Latin mass. If only I had known that at the beginning of my Catholic journey!

Depression And Incompetence

depression[1].jpgUnfortunately I was still completely depressed. Due to this depression, I was utterly failing to complete the tasks that had been assigned to me at work. I was still in a state of despair as I considered my prospects: I felt like a fake and a failure in this job, lying to everyone about the work that I was doing. I reflected upon all my past jobs and realised that it was just the same pattern repeating itself: I never ever got anything done. I was always taking months on end to complete the simplest tasks. I felt completely incompetent. Other people didn’t seem to have any problem completing their work, but I simply could not do it. I felt absolutely no passion for this job, and it wasn’t long before I found myself gravitating towards theological articles rather than doing the work that had been assigned to me. I really was not cut out for this sort of work. I had always been interested and skilled in computer science, but software engineering is a totally different thing and it didn’t seem that I was very good at it at all.

This line of thinking only served to reinforce my depression: the future looked bleak. I felt like I was locked into a pattern of failure and dishonesty and that I could not escape this. I felt like work was just something that I had to do, even if I couldn’t actually do it; otherwise how would I make money? How would I survive? I could not imagine any other possibilities in life. My passion was theology, faith and philosophy, but I felt like I was locked into this boring software developer lifestyle forever. I felt completely trapped and helpless. I had resigned myself to a depressing future as an incompetent, dishonest programmer.

After my first performance review – which was entirely negative – I started having suicidal thoughts again. I was tempted to throw myself in front of the oncoming traffic on O’Riordan Street.

During this entire time, I had been in regular contact with the team at EIPS. I came in for a face-to-face session with Alex Goymour. I talked through my depression with her, and she was able to shine a light in the gloomy darkness. For my entire life, my Mother had scared me into believing that the only way to be happy was to earn lots of money in some shit-house “good” job and then try to enjoy life on the weekend. Alex Goymour was able to dismantle this idea easily. How could I possibly be happy in life if I’m spending 8 hours a day doing something which I dread and hate, and another 4 hours a day travelling to and from work? Why do I have to keep doing this job? Why do I have to be a software developer? Answer: I don’t have to. I enjoy studying and have always wanted to study computer science. Why don’t I just do that? I can get a part time job and spend the rest of my time doing something that I actually enjoy: studying. Furthermore in Australia the government is willing to give financial assistance to those who are studying in tertiary institutions. Really, I have nothing to worry about: I could leave my job and still survive. I could actually do something that interests me.

All of a sudden there was a crack in the door. I threw my foot in it and refused to let the door close. Finally, for the first time in two years, life was starting to look up again. I actually had some opportunities which I could pursue. I actually had something to look forward to; something to be optimistic about. I wasn’t committed to any particular course of action, but finally I felt as if I had options and a future to look forward to and hope for.

Don’t forget Mindy

During this entire time, I had remained in contact with Mindy. We still contacted each other on whatsapp throughout the day. Sometimes we would have cyber sex via text or video. Technically, we were still engaged and intending to get married, so Mindy was looking into options for moving back to Australia. However I was no longer putting up with her crap any more: I had set a strict bedtime of 10pm. Therefore we were not allowed to talk to each other past this time. This was tricky because of the time gap between Hong Kong and Sydney. It basically meant that there were no times when we could talk to each other face to face. I thought to myself “Too bad” and refused to stay online past 10pm, for the sake of my mental health. One time Mindy threw another tantrum over facetime because of this. I remember witnessing her slitting her wrists with scissors because I was refusing to cooperate with her and she wanted to show just how emotionally high strung she was feeling. I did not understand why she was slitting her wrists and ended up having a long chat with Alex Goymour about it.

In December of 2016, Mindy organised a trip to Sydney to visit me and her Sydney friends. Seeing as it was impractical to see her if we weren’t staying together, I ended up packing a suitcase and moving to an airbnb in Carlton for a few weeks to be with her.

636127612649597424-2088627452_151746-154990[1].jpgNaturally we had no restraint and ended up fucking non-stop. And of course at the same time we continued to have incredibly painful fights and yelling matches. My mental health was not quite tip top and I was regularly feeling infuriated and enraged at her. I also had lots of accumulated bitterness towards her due to my time in Hong Kong. At one point as we were walking home she was in full crazy bitch mode and all standoffish. I cracked and smacked her and threw the contents of her bag on the road, smashing whatever I could. I hated her so much. This relationship really was toxic for both of us.

I was willing to give her one last chance. Many people had told me that they were converted to Catholicism by the Latin mass. Many others had told me that they had taken their non-Catholic partners to Latin mass and they too ended up converting. Maciej and some of the parishioners at Lewisham had encouraged me to bring Mindy along. I thought to myself: “This is my last hope: I will bring Mindy to Latin mass and see what happens. If she doesn’t show any signs of conversion we’re through.”

So one Thursday night we both suited up and trekked to Lewisham to attend the solemn sung Latin mass. The whole time Mindy just stared at her feet and prayed, clearly trying to block out the experience as much as she could. Afterwards we had dinner at Darling Harbour and she revealed her impressions. She did not enjoy it. She hated it. We ended up in a fight again: “I don’t want my children being exposed to that!” “Well I don’t want my children growing up with your bullshit protestant heresies!” It was clear to me that there was no hope for this relationship. It was also clear to me that Mindy was not even a real Christian. She was a totally depraved heretic who was certainly going to burn and rot in Hell and I wanted nothing more to do with her.

Mindy flew back to Hong Kong, and it wasn’t long before we had agreed to officially call off the engagement and end the relationship. We still maintained contact, but it was different now. We were just friends, not lovers. One of the blessings of God is that it has actually remained that way to this day: every now and then I message her or she messages me, and we are now on friendly terms. But there is no longer any romance. I am entirely satisfied with this turn of events and wish her all the best with her future.

Discerning a Vocation

Around about this time – December 2016 – as I was considering alternative life paths and options, the idea came to me that perhaps I would enjoy being a priest. I had always been attracted to the priesthood, but I had always ruled out the idea on the basis of my engagement to Mindy. Now that I was released from my engagement promise, I began to think seriously about the priesthood: Perhaps this was my way out of depression. As I contemplated being a priest, it was the first time that I actually felt attracted to a job and thought that I might actually be good at it.

Fr-Epeli-BW-150x150[1]I decided to get in contact with Father Epeli Qimaqima, the vocations director for the archdiocese of Sydney. One day after work we met at the Archbishops palace, where Father Epeli was living. We discussed my background and plans and desires, and Father Epeli was very encouraging. It wasn’t long after this meeting that I became entirely committed to the idea of joining the priesthood. The only thing holding me back was the fact that it was so late in the year and so it would be hard to acquire the appropriate references in time to apply, and also that I was a committed Universalist. At a later meeting with Father Epeli I asked him if my Universalism ruled me out from being a priest. Father Epeli responded that no, it doesn’t, but he was concerned and could not personally subscribe to this sort of theology.

Seeing as it was too late to enter seminary, I decided to apply to UNSW and study computer science in the meantime. Thankfully UNSW accepted my application and I was enrolled to start studying again in 2017.

Move to Gladesville

It was becoming increasingly stressful living with Gamps. He had started to charge board and wanting me to move out. If I had not found a place by mid-February he was going to double the rent.

I got in contact with my old flatmate, little Alex. He was approaching the end of his degree and would soon have to move out. I asked him if he would be keen to live together again and he was right on board with the idea. We started house hunting and applying for places to live around the inner west. Unfortunately I didn’t anticipate just how much competition there was going to be. The odds of us actually scoring a house or flat were obviously minuscule, especially considering I was about to quit my job.

639[1].JPGThankfully little Alex managed to find a place: his mate from UTS, Henry Jacobs, was renting a house in Gladesville with his girlfriend. They had recently broken up and Henry was looking for someone else to move in and help pay the rent. Me and little Alex signed up immediately and made the move.

For the first 10 weeks of living in Gladesville I was living in a store room and sleeping on a couch. I bought lots of furniture but was unable to set it up because all of Henry’s stuff was already filling the space. It felt kind of third world, but I was happier and less stressed than when I was living with Gamps, so it was a step up.

Return to UNSW

Over the preceding two years, after the traumatic interactions with Mindy and Alex McCoy, I had developed a slow burning hatred of Protestants. They all seemed entirely ignorant and stupid. I wanted them all to die and be cleansed from the earth in some great calamity. Their core theological convictions all seemed like utter crap to me. Sola Fide was clearly and specifically contradicted by James 2:24. Sola Scriptura was obviously self-contradictory, incoherent nonsense. Protestants seemed entirely blind and idiotic.

I realised that this hatred of Protestants was not healthy. I was constantly praying for God to heal me and take the hatred away. I hated Protestants so much and wanted them all to die in a fire, and I knew that such hatred was damaging my soul and dragging me down to Hell.

I turned up at UNSW on my first day, and was incredibly excited to attend my first class: “Introduction to New Testament Greek”. I was incredibly tense: I knew that this sort of subject would attract armies of hyperventilating evangelicals and was preparing myself for arguments and hostilities. Thankfully the class came and went without issue.

unsw-library-lawn[1].jpegI wandered around campus waiting for my next class, and noticed hordes of CBS evangelicals walking around campus evangelising people. They had also taken over the quad and there were thousands of them sitting in circles doing bible studies. I tensed up, experienced flashbacks to my arguments with Mindy and Alex McCoy, and became full of hatred and disgust. “Fuck these heretics” I thought to myself, and left the area swiftly.

The next day at Uni, I noticed a poster which advertised a Catholic society event: ice cream and pancakes to welcome students to the new year and new semester. I eagerly awaited this event, avoiding the brainwashed CBS hordes as best as I could.

As I walked up the stairs of the squarehouse to the Catholic chaplaincy, I was incredibly nervous. I had only just emerged from my depression and was still feeling a bit shaky. I didn’t know if I would be able to maintain conversation with people.

But the event turned out to be awesome. I spent most of my time talking to a Singaporean girl called Kamilla, and a Chinese girl called Scarlett. We talked about language, religion, the bible, translations, China and so on. It was great fun and I was in high social gear. I stayed for the entire event, even after people had left. Eventually I ended up standing in a circle with the only other people in the room, one of whom was Jess Gereis and another Tamara Neil. Both these girls seemed like super evangelical, mega devout Catholics. This was incredibly exciting.

As the weeks went by I made many friends in the campus Catholic society. The people in the society seemed devout and faithful, even if many of them had been poorly catechised. I felt happy and content for the first time in a long time: I finally had a decent Catholic community I could hang out with on a regular basis. My prayers had been answered again!

main-troll[1].jpgUnfortunately during this time my antagonism towards the protestants deepened. I would walk past the CBS bible studies and be filled with disgust, cursing them and wishing damnation upon them. My hatred was starting to spill over onto facebook, where I was writing horrible things about evangelicals and blaming them for all of society’s ills. I was a pot that was slowly boiling over. This was not healthy; my hatred was eating me from within, and my constant prayer was “God, please take the hate away.”

Prayers Answered

My first semester came and went, and I enjoyed a Catholic retreat with the Chaplaincy and various other events with the Catholic society during the mid year break.

During this time I continued to read the Eclectic Orthodoxy blog. I stumbled across an article series which I had read before and it had resonated with me, but I didn’t fully understand. It was titled “Sola Fide and why Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants need the reformation”. I gave it a read again. As I read it, it started to make more and more sense. Suddenly I was struck by lightening: I finally understood what “Sola Fide” was all about. I realised that the Catholic church really had fallen off track in a very important sense. I realised that Sola Fide – when correctly understood – does not contradict James 2:24.

In the blink of an eye, I understood the core convictions that drive Protestantism, and I realised that these people were not so stupid, evil and depraved after all. Suddenly I had the same gospel joy that they had, and I was no longer jealous of their happiness.

Most importantly, I no longer hated them. I actually began to love them once again.

Ever since I came to this understanding of Sola Fide, I have been able to attend Protestant services again, and enjoy fellowship with Protestants. I even began to attend my local Anglican church on Sunday evenings.

The Archbishops Palace

e159c3d892180852c1a6d04dc0115f2a[1].jpegDuring 2017 I went on a couple of “Discernment retreats”. This is where a whole bunch of guys come together and camp out while talking about spiritual matters and attempting to work out whether or not to commit to the life of a priest. This was great fun and intensely enjoyable for me.

During the second such retreat, I met a certain young Lebanese guy who seemed entirely puffed up with pride and hatred towards all non-Catholics. I saw myself reflected in him and decided to have a chat with him. I told him with a twinkle in my eye that I thought he would be a fun one to debate. We ended up sitting down and passionately arguing about a variety of topics. I was basically trolling him, and he was getting all hot and steamy. He was incredibly rigid. He treated the catechism as infallible. Whenever I attempted to propose an idea which was contradictory to established church teaching, he would call foul and flick to the relevant part of the catechism, attempting to shut me up by ecclesiastical fiat.

Talking to this guy made me realise that I might face some opposition in my priestly journey. I did not want to be a liberal, but neither did I want to be a conservative. I wanted to remain faithful to the dogmatic, liturgical and scriptural traditions of the Church, but I am not going to pretend that all church teaching is infallible when in actual fact the vast majority of it is not. If I feel the need to dispute some established teaching, I am well within my rights to do so.

Due to my being on the radar of the Archdiocese as a “discerner”, I was invited to the Archbishops palace for a formal dinner along with many of the other discerners in the diocese. The night was incredibly enjoyable: The Archbishop gave a kickass speech, the food was great, the conversation was wonderful. I was expecting the Archbishop to be a total politician, but in actual fact the man managed to present himself as nothing more than a faithful Christian. I was completely impressed.

Changing Plans

As 2017 came to a close, I reflected on my goals and plans. I was pretty committed to the idea of being a priest, so why on earth was I wasting my time with a computer science degree? I figured I should either enter seminary, or study something more relevant to my goals.

I researched the University of Sydney biblical languages department. I discovered that it is possible to learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Syriac in a tight double degree structure. I was immediately sold. I applied for transfer from UNSW to USYD and after a painful wait, was accepted.

During the Christmas of 2017 Mindy visited again. This time it was a nice and pleasant visit. We were just good friends by this point. We didn’t end up having sex, which relieved and overjoyed me tremendously. I accompanied her to one of her FOCUS friend’s wedding, and she accompanied me to my local Anglican church. It was wonderful to see her again and just hang out as friends.

To Be Continued…

2018 has begun. I am no longer depressed. Life is entirely bright and wonderful. I am having the time of my life. I am looking forward to my language studies tremendously. I finally have lots of Catholic friends and feel completely content in my faith. I am a passionate evangelist for the one true Gospel of Universal Salvation, and am having some success spreading the word among my fellow Catholics.

I have been occupying my time by hanging out with Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s great fun to get to know what these other groups believe and build relationships with those who are different to me. I’m particularly impressed with the Mormon doctrine of “Afterlife ministry”: They believe that the people in Heaven will travel to Hell and minister to the people who are trapped there, hopefully saving them and enabling them to escape to Heaven. This resonates with me strongly, and seems like an entirely more Christian and loving view of afterlife relations.

mfp_usa01_1[1].pngI am intending to visit America some time this year, because there is a Universalist conference happening and it would be a dream come true to attend and meet some other Universalists. I would also like to visit my Father in California, and also the writer of the Eclectic Orthodoxy blog, Father Kimel. Father Kimel has been a massive influence on me through his writings and I eagerly desire to meet him in person and shake his hand, thanking him for the joy that he has managed to spread to my life. I contacted him and he was happy to hear from me, offering to let me stay at his house with him and his wife for a short time.

Hopefully I succeed in my journey to priesthood, and am able to keep up with the work during my biblical languages studies. Life is good. Please pray for me and my future. God’s blessings be with you.

(Return to first article)

Questions of Canon and Ecumenism

genizah-credit-taylor-schechter-genizah-research-unit[1]

I remember being surprised, baffled and deeply intrigued when I discovered that there were different canons of scripture out in the world. As time went on, I began to wonder what the implications were for ecumenism. I began to wonder what the implications were for faith: If a community of confirmed, faithful Christians firmly believe that God is speaking to them through a book which has not been approved by the infallible magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, what does it mean?

I would like to propose a brief solution. The idea is that there are inspired scriptures which are catholic, which is to say “universal”. Such scriptures are addressed by God to every individual who has ever lived. These scriptures must be received and respected by anyone who is attempting to engage in theology. They cannot be discarded or dismissed. The canon of the universal scriptures was dogmatically promulgated by the council of Trent, and canonically promulgated many times prior to that at local councils.

220px-Ethiopian_Madonna[1].jpgHowever, there are also inspired scriptures which are not catholic. That is to say, they are local, private, or specific to a specific time, place or group of people. A classic example would be the Ethiopian Orthodox canon of scripture. The Ethiopian tradition includes many books which are not to be found outside of that specific church. Are we to simply dismiss this as a theological error by the Ethiopians? How can we do this, when their bishops are all validly ordained, and therefore their received liturgies are just as inspired as the approved Catholic liturgies. In this situation, whatever scripture they have read and received in their liturgy would logically also be inspired. The solution to this problem is to say that these texts are indeed inspired, however they are only addressed to the Ethiopian church: people who are outside of this church need not pay any attention to these texts. It is similar to the doctrine of “private revelation” in the Catholic church. These revelations are private, addressed to discrete groups of people rather than the whole of humanity.

Another example concerns the Eastern Orthodox canon. The Eastern Orthodox include three extra books and one extra psalm in their canon. These additions could be ecumenically received as local inspired texts, rather than catholic inspired texts. As such, they are relevant to churches in the eastern tradition, because they have been received within that tradition, however people who are not immersed in that tradition and do not have any connection to it do not need to heed these books.

downloadThe principle could be applied and extended out wide in order to encompass other religions and cults. For example the Church of Latter Day Saints have their own tradition within which certain scriptures have been received (for example, the Book of Mormon). If they were to one day come back into communion with the Holy Catholic Church, they could be permitted to retain their unique scriptures provided that they are understood to be local revelation rather than catholic revelation. Of course, it is to be assumed that their received scriptures are interpreted in a way that is consistent with the rest of the deposit of faith. In this particular case it would probably call for a purely allegorical interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

Potentially we could re-approach the Jews with this principle in mind. We could allow them to take the Hebrew old testament and apply it as they wish. Even though we know that the law is not binding on Christians, Jewish Christians may choose to follow the law regardless, as it is part of their tradition and heritage.

The Islamic traditions are also fair game. Potentially one day there will be an “Islamic Ordinariate” or a Sui Iuris church which traces it’s heritage to the Islamic world. Such a church would have a heavily Islamised liturgy, wherein the faithful pray the Salat towards the Eucharist set in a monstrance during adoration (for example). It would 220px-Mosque[1]potentially by acceptable for them to retain the Qu’ran as a local inspired text within this tradition, provided that the Qu’ran is understood and interpreted in a way that is consistent with the deposit of faith. Potentially an edited, “Christian” edition of the Qu’ran could be produced which edits and deals with troublesome passages, however this would not be optimal.

The same principle could be used to inculturate all cultures and religious traditions: Let the people retain as much of what they already have as is possible, including their scriptures. Just be careful to make it clear that any scripture they bring to the table is local revelation rather than catholic revelation: It’s authoritative for people within that specific community, but not binding on anyone else.

This principle is helpful in evangelism, as it accords well with Pauls admonition to “be all things to all people”. Paul wants us to be a Jew to Jews, a Muslim to Muslims, a Buddhist to Buddhists and a Hindu to Hindus. As missionaries we should strive to be as thorough in this task as we can, adopting as much of the local religion as we can in good conscience and without compromising our principles, so as to win the people over to Christ.

Objective and Subjective Salvation

e84bdc3bd3ff8b006ebdbfea4473-is-protestantism-better-than-catholicism[1].jpgI think it is helpful when approaching the Catholic/Protestant debate concerning salvation and justification, to draw a distinction between objective salvation and justification, and subjective salvation and justification. This is another application of absurdity: the seeming conflict between God’s eternal perspective and our individual subjective perspectives. In this case God’s perspective is the objective salvation/justification, and our perspective is the subjective salvation/justification.

Objective Salvation

Salvation[1].jpgIn Catholicism, there is a distinction drawn between initial justification and justification. “Initial justification” is the brute fact of whether or not we are justified, whereas “justification” is the degree to which we are justified. To translate into Protestant terminology, “initial justification” becomes simply “justification”, and “justification” becomes “sanctification”.

Romans 5:18 ESV

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Now, initial justification is universal: all men without exception are objectively justified by the cross, descent to Hell, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The atonement was unlimited: it was an infinite, over-abundant payment for all the sins of humanity. Christ suffered Hell so that we don’t have to. All men have life and justification due to Christ’s act of righteousness. Objectively, everyone is already saved and justified. In Christ, all of our sins have been forgiven. All of this is entirely by Grace, as it depends entirely on God and in no way depends on us.

To what degree do individuals have objective justification? This is determined by the quantity and quality of loving works which Christ performs through them. Every good and loving work performed by a soul leads to the heavenly reward of an increase in objective justification. This is the “laying up of treasures in heaven” Jesus speaks about. These treasures “never decay”, which is to say that we can never lose them: Our degree of justification can only ever increase, it can never decrease.

Furthermore, all individuals have the Holy Spirit, and therefore all individuals are predestined to persevere to the end and not ultimately fall away from the salvation that Christ has won for them.

Subjective Salvation

irrational-fears[1].jpgHowever from our perspective, things are different. Subjectively, we are walking in darkness: despite the fact that we are objectively justified, we do not by default have a strong experience of this salvation. We wander about in guilt and despair, looking for something to place our hope in and finding nothing. Despite the fact that we have objectively been saved, we are subjectively experiencing damnation.

This situation changes when someone shares the Gospel with us. The Gospel essentially is the proclamation of Christ’s death, descent to Hell, and resurrection, along with the objective justification that this implies for the hearer of the message. The Gospel is therefore an unconditional promise of both present and future salvation: The Gospel says “You are righteous, right now, because Christ lives within you” and also “You will eventually arrive in Heaven, where you will enjoy a perfect relationship with God, Creation and all other souls”. These promises are unconditional: no matter what, they are going to come to pass and there is nothing we can do about it. As such the only possible responses are either to have faith in the promise, or reject the promise through disbelief and outrage.

If you have faith in the promise, this faith inevitably leads to joy and love, and the joy and love are in and of themselves a direct subjective experience of the objective salvation/justification which Christ has won. In this way, Subjective justification can be said to come through faith alone, just as all the reformers insisted. It is important to note that we do not “earn” our justification by our faith (faith is not a work), and faith is not merely “evidence” of justification: instead faith in the unconditional promise directly leads to love and joy which is in itself a direct experience of justification. Also important to note is that it is impossible for works of any sort to lead to initial justification in a subjective sense, because you simply cannot do anything to earn an unconditional promise. An unconditional promise depends entirely on God, not on us. Whether or not we believe the promise, the promise still stands and will come to pass.

Sacraments of promise

sacraments-stained-glass.jpgIn a general, generic sense, God’s promise of salvation is spoken to all humanity universally in the tradition of the church and the pages of scripture. However it is extremely useful to our personal experience of salvation to have this general promise made directly and specifically to each of us as individuals. In order for us to put our faith in it, it helps to have the promise spoken to us specifically and personally. This is where the sacraments come in.

In baptism, God sacramentally speaks the promise of present salvation to us individually. In baptism, God declares “Your sins have been washed away; All of your sins, past, present, and future, have been forgiven; You are united to Christ; You are righteous; You are justified.” This declaration – or promise – is a statement of objective fact. When the individual places their faith in this promise, all of a sudden they transition from walking in darkness to walking in light; they are experiencing salvation here and now in their subjective experience of life. They believe and trust that Christ has justified them, and this belief and trust immediately leads to a subjective experience of justification.

In confirmation, God sacramentally speaks the promise of future salvation to each individual. In confirmation God says “I have sealed you with my Holy Spirit; I will never leave you; I will never abandon you; I guarantee your inheritance in heaven; you will not suffer everlasting damnation; you will be perfect”. Confirmation is thus the sacrament of predestination and perseverance. Again, this promise is unconditional and therefore can only be subjectively received by faith. The effect of trusting this promise is to bring the promised future eschaton into the present experience of the believer. The person who trusts in the promise of confirmation is thus living in the end times even before the end times have arrived.

Mortal Sin and ConfessionFeaturedMortalSin[1].png

Romans 8:31-39 RSVCE

31 What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; 34 who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us?[f] 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written,

“For thy sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Objectively, there is nothing that can separate us from the justification that Christ has won for us. There is nothing we can do, no sin which we could commit, which would remove our initial justification or decrease our level of justification. Our salvation and justification is a brute fact. As St Paul says; neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

However subjectively it is possible for someone to fall from a state of walking in the light back into a state of walking in darkness. This is a subjective movement from the state of grace, back into the state of sin. A person ceases to experience the justification that Christ has won for them. This occurs through Mortal Sin.

Faith in the promises of God has two effects: it leads to joy and love, but it also leads to guilt and sorrow. Faith in the promise of God both delights and tortures, as a soul becomes aware of how it has sinned against love and this leads to extreme agony. In this way, sin leads to a damaging of subjective justification via the introduction of subjective guilt. When we commit mortal sins, this constitutes a rejection of God and thus generates guilt in us. Of course, if we have been baptised we have already received the promise of God that all of our sins have been forgiven and that we are therefore objectively “not guilty”. However in our day to day experience of life, this promise made at our baptism becomes foggy and less vivid in our memory as time goes by. As such, guilt creeps up on us when we commit mortal sins and causes us to despair. Again, this despair is unfounded, because we have assurance that we are justified. Nevertheless the despair and guilt creep up on us and reduce our subjective experience of justification and salvation. In the case of apostasy or unbelief, our subjective justification is almost entirely lost.

In confession, God sacramentally reiterates the promise that he made to us at baptism: “You are forgiven; you are justified”. In this way, the sacrament of confession serves as a way to anchor ourselves in the promise that was spoken to us a long time ago. It gives us a sacramental object of faith which is close to the present and fresh in our memory, rather than distant in the past where we can’t remember it. This is particularly important for people who were baptised when they were infants and therefore can’t recall their baptism at all! For people who struggle to recall their baptism, it is incredibly helpful to have the sacrament of confession at their disposal, so that they can hear the promise of God sacramentally reiterated to them again and again as much as is needed. The promise spoken during confession and absolution is the same promise that was spoken during baptism, and so again, it is an unconditional promise that can only be received and activated in the soul by faith alone.

Someone who has a strong faith in the promise of God does not strictly need to go to confession, although it is always helpful to do so and it is therefore mandated by current Church discipline. If they experience perfect contrition due to their strong faith their subjective justification will never take a hit because they will never experience the guilt and despair which destroys faith and damages justification.

Subjective and Objective Beatitude

tumblr_m91n4lKUVZ1qgodnzo1_1280-827x1024[1]Objectively, every single good work Christ performs through us leads to an increase in objective justification. There is nothing we can do which will decrease this justification. However due to our imperfect memories and imperfect understanding of the effects of our actions, we do not subjectively experience this ever-increasing justification. When we do a good, loving work, we temporarily experience the heavenly bliss which it won for us. But then time marches on and the experience fades into the dark recesses of our memory. We only ever experience the present moment, and the present moment contains only some memories of the past, not all of them at once, therefore we only subjectively experience a small portion of the justification and salvation that has been won for us. In this way, Justification is something that can ebb and flow in a subjective sense, while it is something invincible that can only grow and not shrink in an objective sense. As mentioned, guilt may creep in and damage our justification despite the fact that we have been declared “not guilty” by God at baptism. This is why we have confession; to bring the promise forward into the present so that we can place our faith in it again.

At the particular judgement, when all is laid bare before us and our perspective is no longer constrained by our limited memories, everything we have ever done will be laid out before us and we will experience all the justification that has been won by our loving actions simultaneously. This will be beatitude: we will experience vision of, and union with, God, in proportion to our amount of justification.

Sacraments necessary for salvation

sacraments[1].gifThe Catholic church has dogmatised the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. But the question needs to be asked, “are sacraments necessary for objective or subjective salvation?”

The sacraments are only necessary for salvation in a subjective sense. Baptism is necessary in order to have the promise of God personalised and spoken to you as an individual. However the church also recognises “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood”. This hints that it is really the faith in the promise spoken through the sacrament that is more important, rather than the sacrament itself. Likewise with confession: Confession is said to be necessary, but it is possible to receive justification and forgiveness via perfect contrition apart from the sacrament.

Objectively the sacraments are superfluous. Christ’s promises will come to pass regardless of if they are spoken to us sacramentally. We are objectively justified and predestined to heaven. Someone can place their faith in Christ’s promises without those promises being spoken to them personally in the sacraments. However this is hard. God gives us the sacraments to help us and reassure us and make his promises tangible. In this way it is faith in the promises alone which leads to subjective justification.

Anonymous Christians and implicit faith

how-to-volunteer-with-buddhist-monks-3-1461922112[1].pngIt is a maxim in Catholicism that works and faith are inseparable: faith always leads to works, and works are always a demonstration of faith. This idea leads to the concept of anonymous Christians. An anonymous Christian is someone who demonstrates implicit faith in God and his promises via their loving actions, despite the fact that they do not have explicit faith in the promises of God. These people are laying up treasures in heaven without realising it: they are objectively justified by Christ, and they are increasing their objective level of justification by their loving works, however subjectively they are still largely walking in darkness as they do not have an explicit knowledge of the promise of the Gospel. These people need to be evangelised and told the good news. In this way their objective justification will become subjectively activated and these people will transition from being anonymous Christians walking in darkness into explicit Christians who are walking in the light, overflowing with joy.

Summary

sola-fide1[1].jpgThe Lutheran doctrine of sola fide, when correctly understood, does not contradict Catholic dogma but rather complements it nicely. Subjective justification is by faith alone: the strength of an individuals faith in Gods promises determines the quality of their experience of salvation. However objective justification is by Grace alone: Christ died in our place and forever paid for our sins, furthermore he works through us and these works are rewarded with an increase in our level of justification.

(Go to “The Glorious Gospel”)

Unpopular opinions

Polygamy

1433335105153.cached1[1].jpgI believe that certain problems that we face today could be solved if the church re-allowed sacramental marriage between a man and many wives, and between a woman and many husbands.

I should immediately clarify that I do not think that polygamy should be encouraged by the Church, I merely think it should be permitted. The evidence – both biblical and extra-biblical – shows that monogamy is the superior form of marriage: the partners are able to give themselves to each other more fully and lovingly and dedicate themselves to the raising of a genetically tight family. However there is a precedent in the tradition for polygamy in Christianity and Judaism, and to a certain degree it survives today in the form of remarriage after the death of a spouse. I propose that this practice be permitted once again.

Similar to the Eastern Orthodox view of marriage, I see marriage as being an eternal sacrament which has a permanence which survives death. In other words if you are married while you’re alive you’re still married once you’re dead. Marriage imparts an indelible mark on the souls of the partners similar to the marks received at baptism, confirmation and holy ordination. What’s more I believe that the sacrament of marriage has a retrocausal dimension, which is to say that the partners are married in the eyes of God even before they exchange vows in a temporal sense (Although logically and formally the exchange of vows is still necessary for the marriage to take place)

With this permanence of the sacrament in mind it would seem that the church already allows for a limited form of polygamy in that if someone’s spouse dies, they are free to marry again. However if marriage is something that survives death as I believe, then remarriage after the death of a spouse would imply that a person has technically entered into multiple simultaneous marriages at once.

So what is my motivation for proposing a return to permitting polygamy across the board? There are a couple of reasons. The first is that allowing for sacramental polygamy would make it much much easier for people who come from polygamous cultures to convert. I vaguely recall a tale about a Native American who greatly desired to convert to Christianity, but was unable to do so because he was unable to choose only one of his wives to be his sacramental wife. It would have been most charitable, emphatic and understanding if the Church simply tolerated polygamy in special circumstances such as these and allowed for multiple simultaneous sacramental marriages. This is not an isolated incident either: there are many cultures where polygamy is the norm, such as parts of Africa and China, and the entire Islamic world. It would be much easier for families from these cultures to convert if they were given a special dispensation to continue with sacramental polygamy. Of course polygamy should be strongly discouraged, if not forbidden in general (with special exceptions, as outlined below) for future generations.

The second situation where polygamy should be permitted is when a marriage has broken down and the partners are estranged and living apart, and one or both of the partners have civilly remarried. This is obviously a terrible situation, however it does no good to deny the sacraments to the civilly remarried person and simultaneously deny them the means to rectify the situation via a new sacramental marriage. The current controversy surrounding Pope Francis document Amoris Laetita concerns this issue: some bishops are interpreting the document to mean that couples who are living together without being sacramentally married are nevertheless permitted to receive the Eucharist and other sacraments despite technically committing the mortal sin of adultery. As outlined above marriage leaves a permanent mark on the soul and therefore divorce is impossible, however in the situation described it really is nonsensical to forbid the civilly remarried couple from seeking sacramental marriage. I propose that in this situation it would be pastorally much more wise to simply allow technical polygamy which ends up working out as functional monogamy: The remarried couple are essentially living monogamous lives with each other, even though one of the partners is technically married to two people. This is a similar situation to allowing remarriage after the death of a spouse: Technically the surviving partner is married to two people; the deceased partner and the living partner; however functionally they are still living a monogamous life.

Obviously the constant prayer in this second situation should be that the original partners will find some way to come back together, even despite the new marriages. However in many relationship breakdowns this is completely infeasible and simply does not happen.

In conclusion, I think that monogamy should be strongly encouraged by the church, however I think that polygamy should be permitted in certain special circumstances, for example when someone from a polygamous culture wants to convert to Christianity, or when a marriage breaks down and the partners remarry. Polygamy, if it is introduced should be closely guarded and require special dispensations which are not handed out easily. Polygamy should not be encouraged, but it should be tolerated. It is unwise but not impossible.

Note: It has come to my attention that the council of Trent produced an anathema against polygamy. This of course needs to be interpreted in context to work out if it rules out polygamy as it is described above (Does it take into account marriage as an eternal sacrament and remarriage after the death of a spouse?), however it appears to be a fairly damning dogma.

Premarital Sex

evangelical-sex-sessions-teaser_gsnmrm.jpgFollowing on from the idea that marriage is eternal and retrocausal, it would seem that a couple is technically already married even before they exchange vows. In this way if they engage in sexual intercourse prior to the marriage ceremony, they have not actually commit the mortal sins of fornication and adultery. Of course, it would be quite unwise to engage in sexual intercourse prior to the wedding ceremony because there is no guarantee that they will indeed end up getting married at that point, in which case it would indeed be fornication and adultery.

Perhaps in this context, sex before marriage should be seen as something which propels the couple towards the marriage ceremony and commits them to it. Again, this is unwise but not impossible.

Women’s Ordination

Women-Ordination-01[1]I believe that certain ecumenical problems the church faces today could be resolved if we recognised women’s ordinations in special circumstances. To be clear, I am not proposing that any of the churches in the Catholic communion change their practice of restricting ordination to men. I simply think that there should be special dispensations allowed for women to be ordained in certain extremely limited circumstances.

The main advantage is entirely ecumenical. The Anglicans and Lutherans and certain other denominations and churches already have female bishops, priests and pastors. If we are to come into communion with them we must find some way of accommodating this development. Technically most of these female bishops and priests lack apostolic succession and valid holy orders, as they come from communions which broke this succession at the time of the reformation. However it should be possible to receive them into communion by giving them a fresh and valid ordination, just as is done with priests who enter the Anglican Ordinariate. An ecumenical dispensation is granted to Anglican priests who are married so that they can continue their priestly ministry in the Catholic church, in a similar way an ecumenical dispensation could be granted to female priests and bishops so that they can continue their sacramental ministry.

I’m speaking on the assumption that woman can be ordained in the first place. I have not heard a single strong argument against the possibility of women’s ordination. There is the argument from tradition, which states that because it has never been done, it never can be done. This is obviously fallacious. There is the argument that priests have to be men because Jesus was a man. This can also be demonstrated to be fallacious: If all priests have to be men because Jesus was a man, then why not also make it a requirement that all priests have to be Jewish because Jesus was a Jew? Or why not make it a requirement that all priests have to be born of a virgin, because Jesus was born of a virgin? There is a similar argument that priests have to be men because all of the apostles chosen by Jesus were men. This line of argument suffers from the same limitations as the previous one: all the apostles were Jewish, does this mean that all priests have to be Jewish? All the apostles lived in the first century, does this mean that all priests have to have lived in the first century?

I see no fundamental reason why a woman cannot be a priest and perform all the sacramental functions of a priest. Christ was human; women are human: surely this is the essential point. Women share a humanity with Christ, and therefore women have it within themselves to share in his priestly service, offering the sacrifice of the mass, hearing confessions, effecting the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine. Nevertheless I am speaking of possibility here, not prudence. While I believe that it is possible for women to be priests, I don’t think it is wise. The New Testament speaks in strong terms about men being the leaders and women being submissive followers. It also forbids women from speaking in Church and generally talks them out of taking on leadership roles. If we are to take the New Testament seriously as our Christian constitution and guide, we can only conclude that female pastors are a bad idea. They may not be impossible, but they are definitely unwise. So if they are to be allowed in the Catholic church they should only be allowed ecumenically, that is, in such a way that only the communities which already allow female pastors are allowed to retain them, while communities which at the present time forbid them should continue forbidding them.

Physical Discipline of Wives

13008[1].jpgThe last controversial opinion to put forward is that I think there should be no legal consequences for a man who beats his wife with good cause. Straight up I want to make clear that I am not in favour of domestic violence and I take a dim view of a man who brutally beats up his wife. However I do believe that men should have the option to physically discipline their wives.

I would like to draw an analogy with nuclear weapons: No one would say that the detonation of a nuclear bomb against an enemy is a good thing. Similarly, no one would say that the use of physical violence by a man against his wife is ever a good thing. However, the mere possibility that a country could launch a nuclear attack serves as a deterrent against provoking that country into a war. Similarly the mere possibility that a husband could physically discipline his wife should serve as a deterrent against the wife attempting to usurp his male authority and husbandly headship. If a man is to effectively be the head of his household – as he is called to be in the bible – he needs to be in charge and an effective leader. He needs to have his wife and children in submission. If physical discipline is permitted in order to keep children well behaved, it should be permitted towards wives too.

Obviously the best husband would be one who manages to keep his household in order without resorting to violence of any sort. However the mere possibility that a husband could physically retaliate should serve as a deterrent to the wife, and thus make it easier to keep the household in proper order. I am not in favour of normalising domestic violence. If husbands are brutally and violently abusing their wives without sufficient cause this is completely unacceptable. Ironically, we could look to the Islamic world in order to learn more about the acceptable limits of physical discipline towards wives. Muslims have been pondering this question for centuries and trying to work out a theology of the most “loving” and “charitable” way to physically discipline wives. Muslims have examined the issue from many angles and come to all sorts of conclusions about the various nuances involved. Christians, and western society in general could learn something from them.

Part of the decline of western society stems from feminism and the usurpation of the husband as the head of the family. Women have attempted to dethrone men as the leaders and this has lead to utter chaos: rampant abortions, divorces, failed marriages, sexual promiscuity. Unfortunately the laws of the west have been infected with this feminist nonsense and they favour women to the point that men are effectively unable to govern their families as the head of the household. Men are the ones living in fear that their wives might have an affair, divorce them, and then take off with half their wealth and all the children. If a man attempts to physically assert his authority he is faced with legal repercussions. The ability of a western man to govern his household is completely neutered by the situation in western society. If a western man has a disobedient wife, he is unable to discipline her. A good Christian man can only pray for a good submissive Christian wife, but such women are incredibly rare in western society.

I propose that the solution to this problem is to re-approach the possibility of husbands physically disciplining their wives without legal repercussions. We can look to the Islamic world for guidance on how to do this fairly and responsibly

(Disclaimer: On this last issue I am not committed to anything that I have said and am entirely willing to have my opinion changed. I am merely thinking out loud. Don’t come away from this post thinking that I am advocating for beating up women: I’m not)

Catholics should embrace “Simul Iustus Et Peccator”

Stamp[1].gifA classic formula of Luther is simul iustus et peccator – simultaneously justified and a sinner. This formula concisely sums up the reformation view of justification. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has taken issue with this formula, however I argue that it really doesn’t need to; it doesn’t take much effort to interpret the formula such that it becomes a concise summary of the contemporary Catholic understanding of justification.

The difference in interpretation is a simple reversal: Protestants understand the formula as meaning that we are extrinsically righteous and intrinsically sinful. Whereas Catholics can understand the formula as expressing the fact that we are intrinsically righteous and extrinsically sinful.

Extrinsically Righteous, Intrinsically Sinful

lawsuit[1].jpgThe protestant understanding of Justification is forensic. Protestants like to define Justification as “to be declared righteous”. So if someone is justified, this is meant to imply that God has decreed that the person in question is righteous, regardless of the reality of the situation. In fact, this declaration is made contrary to the reality of the situation. The Justified man is still a totally depraved sinner, incapable of doing anything good on his own; he is completely and entirely evil to the core. In the protestant view of things, the sinner is so far gone that it is impossible for God to heal them. However in order to get around this situation God performs a magic trick called double imputation. This is where the sin of the sinner is wrapped up and exchanged with the righteousness of Christ. The sin of the sinner is imputed to Christ and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner. Protestants often talk about being “clothed in the righteousness of Christ”. Sometimes they say “Jesus’ righteousness is credited to our account and our sins are credited to his account”.

The key thing to note about all of this is that it is entirely forensic: justification consists of a simple legal decree where God says to the sinner “you are righteous” and he says to Christ “you are sinful”, despite the fact that both of these declarations in no way correspond with the reality of the situation: Jesus is still inherently sinless and the sinner is still inherently totally depraved.

In this way, Protestants understand that those who are justified are intrinsically sinful, as they are still vile, totally depraved sinners, and yet they are externally righteous, because they are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and this is what the Heavenly Father sees when he looks at them.

Intrinsically Righteous, Extrinsically Sinful

tumblr_mzt2ys1GdH1t5lrm6o1_400[1].gifCompare this with the Catholic understanding. In contrast to the forensic understanding of Justification in Protestantism, Catholics understand Justification to mean “to be made righteous”. That is, Justification means that the person in question has really and truly become righteous. However it is important to note that this righteousness is the righteousness of Christ. Rather than being “clothed” externally in Christ’s righteousness, Catholics believe that his righteousness is directly infused into the soul of the justified. A dual-ownership of the righteousness occurs in that both Christ, and the Justified person can point to the righteousness and say “that is mine”.

However despite being intrinsically righteous, the Justified person is still living in a fallen creation and as such they are subject to concupiscence and temptation from the flesh, the world, and the Devil. So even though they are intrinsically righteous, they are not impeccable: they are still able to sin. And sin they do. This sin does not detract from their intrinsic righteousness, however it does lead to their soul being damaged and mangled. Their sins externally cling to their soul, and must be burnt off (or “purified”) in purgatory before they are able to ascend to heaven. It is important for protestants to note that someone who is in purgatory is already justified, it is not a second chance at salvation and it is not salvation by works: it is simply the burning away of extrinsic sin that clings to a persons soul.

So Catholics understand that we are intrinsically righteous as the righteousness of Christ is poured into our souls, however we are also extrinsically sinful as the effect of our sins is to damage our soul as they cling to it.

In this way both Catholics and Protestants can affirm “Simul Iustus Et Peccator”, despite having fundamentally different ways of approaching the formula.

Further differences

rewarded-saint[1].jpgThe protestant understanding of Justification is black and white: Either you have been declared righteous or you haven’t. In comparison the Catholic understanding is more fluid: Someone can be “made righteous” to a higher degree than someone else. In the Catholic account, the righteousness of Christ is progressively poured into a soul more and more over that persons lifetime. However when they die the opportunity to grow in righteousness ceases. When the soul ascends to heaven, it receives a reward that is directly proportional to how much righteousness it had accrued during life. In this way there are different levels of reward in heaven, with Mary and Jesus receiving a maximal reward and people like Hitler (assuming he was saved) getting an extremely low reward.

In comparison, Protestants tend to get squeamish when talking about there being different levels of reward in heaven. The general sentiment among protestants is that we will all be infinitely happy and satisfied in heaven, and therefore talk of different rewards is useless.

Protestants sometimes complain that the Catholic account of justification is just salvation by works. This is of course a total misunderstanding. Catholics are saved completely and entirely by Grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), however our level of reward in heaven is determined by our level of righteousness during life, and this is in turn closely tied to the amount of good and loving works we performed while on earth. Works justify us in the sense that works increase our righteousness (James 2:24), and in that faith justifies us and faith and works are inseparable. However the fact that we are saved at all is entirely a matter of Grace, and according to the doctrine of synergism even our works are born of Grace (Ephesians 2:10).

There is a helpful axiom which can be employed to understand the Catholic view: “Every bad thing you do will be punished, and every good thing you do will be rewarded”. In other words: your level of justification leads to a corresponding level of reward in heaven, and the intensity of your “sinful dirtiness” will lead to a correspondingly intense purification in purgatory.

(Go to “Justification as Declaration”)

Aeviternal Apokatastasis

Catholic and Protestant Funerals

russian-orthodox-funeral[1]

The Catholic funeral is very sober and sombre. Much ritual is directed towards petitioning God to allow the departed soul a peaceful journey to heaven. The threat of temporal punishment for unrepented sin looms menacingly over the proceedings. Everyone follows the priest as he leads the gathered mourners in ever-hopeful, but never presumptuous prayer. The eulogy given will surely attempt to be optimistic, however it will be firmly grounded in the life of the deceased; the level of hope that is spoken of will be proportioned more or less to how loving, kind and gentle the deceased had been to God and neighbour during their time on earth. The unspoken assumption hovering at the back of everyone’s minds is that the dearly departed had not been perfected in love at the moment when they died, but neither were they totally depraved and in a state of stubborn rebellion against God’s grace, and therefore it’s a pretty safe bet that they are in neither Heaven nor Hell: They are in Purgatory. Their journey is not complete; it has only just begun. Their suffering did not end with their last breath; they have stepped out of the frying pan and into the fire. They need all the help they can get, and so prayers and petitions for swift deliverance from their future fiery trials are offered up to God.

The Protestant funeral, at a superficial level, is also serious and subdued. However unlike the Catholic funeral, there is a distinct undercurrent of Christian Joy running beneath the sadness. There will be no struggle to stay optimistic in the eulogy this time; it is guaranteed to be a happy, victorious, comforting, evangelical, assuring proclamation of God’s abundant and overflowing mercy towards those who trust in him and his promise of salvation. The deceased was well known by friends and family to have had a strong faith in Christ, and this simple fact will overshadow any sins, character faults and spiritual imperfections that they may have carried with them to the grave. Everybody present knows that none of this believer’s sins could possibly thwart God’s relentless, irresistible Grace. This particular soul has certainly ascended straight into Heaven, where they are enjoying a full and wholesome relationship with each person of the Trinity. Mingled with the grief at the loss of this friend and family member will be prayers of praise and thanksgiving, as the gathered mourners reflect on the wonderful gift of salvation. Sentiments along the lines of “She’s gone to a better place” will be shared, and not at all superficially. If these protestants happen to believe in the communion of the saints, they may even find it appropriate to ask the recently deceased to make use of their newfound close proximity to God to pray and intercede for those left behind.

Notice the conflict: At the Catholic funeral, it is not certain at all where exactly the soul of the recently deceased has departed to. The presumption is that they have ended up in Purgatory, where they will undergo fiery torments and torturous purifications. As such, we should pray for them, and hope that God may have mercy on the poor soul on account of our prayers. Whereas at the Protestant funeral, everyone is extremely confident that the dearly departed is in blissful repose somewhere up in Heaven and is watching over the funeral proceedings with great interest at this very moment. In this case it is not appropriate that we should be praying for them: instead we should be asking them to pray for us!

Temporal and Eternal

clock[1].jpg

Our experience of life is a Temporal one: we experience time. We are able to point backwards to the past and look forwards to the future, but most importantly we experience single moments in sequence, and we can point to this constantly changing single moment as the present. The present moment is the only moment – or slice of time – that we have direct access to and in which we are able to affect reality.

Compare this to God’s Eternal experience: God is omniscient (that is, he possesses all possible and impossible knowledge), and so he experiences all moments in time – past, present, future – simultaneously. In fact for him, there is no such thing as past, present or future, there is simply an “eternal now” that encompasses all possible moments. All these moments are always immediately and directly present to him: he does not have to remember them, or imagine them, or retrieve them from storage and place them on the workbench. Incidentally, this also applies to all of God’s knowledge: God cannot learn or forget – he is immutable (that is, incapable of change) – and so all of God’s knowledge is ever present to him. This idea of a single moment which perfectly and simultaneously encompasses moments is called Eternity. There is no time – past, present or future – in Eternity, to be eternal is to be immutable.

A person can experience one of two broad states: Life and Afterlife. Life is a temporal existence. But what about Afterlife? It is commonly accepted that time pertains to life, and that there is no time after death. However the existence of Purgatory indicates that despite a lack of time change is still possible in the afterlife. This “not quite temporal, not quite eternal” existence is called Aeviternity. To get a grasp on the idea, it is helpful to examine the tradition of the church with regards to indulgences.

Indulgences and Aeviternity

Johann-Tetzel-Selling-Indulgences[1]

Historically indulgences would be quantified by some amount of time. For example saying a certain pious prayer might reduce your time in Purgatory by “40 days”, or completing a certain pilgrimage might reduce your time in Purgatory by “10 years”.  Some of the indulgences became quite extravagant, with time reductions stretching up into the hundreds and thousands of years. Since Vatican II, the church has refrained from putting hard numbers on indulgences and instead offer Plenary and Partial indulgences. A Partial indulgence reduces the time a soul must spend in Purgatory, while a Plenary indulgence completely removes the need for a soul to experience Purgatory at all.

It is interesting to compare the pre and post Vatican II practices. Both of them are valid approaches to indulgences: despite how ridiculous it might seem to some, an indulgence which reduces your time in Purgatory by “5000 years” is entirely valid and in an important sense does exactly what it says. Subjectively Aeviternity is experienced as something analogous to time but which seems to be everlasting, which is to say it is experienced as an “infinite” stretch of time. Considering this, an indulgence which takes fifty thousand years off an infinite stretch of time isn’t even a drop in the ocean, nevertheless it is still worth fighting for because escaping Purgatory involves engaging your will by actively repenting until you are perfectly clean of sin; it is always better to strive towards this goal than not, as it is in no way an unachievable goal. The gift of a Plenary indulgence suddenly becomes clear too: you aren’t reducing your time in purgatory by a set number of days, months or years; you are wiping away the entire punishment!

So there is something akin to time and temporality in Purgatory: This is what happens when we try to map our temporal existence onto an experience of Aeviternity. There is something analogous to time in Purgatory, because there is change and progress. However the important thing to note is that whatever this time analog may be, it is not actually time. Aeviternity is just as timeless as is Eternity proper. So just as it is possible to experience Eternity as an “Eternal now”, with all moments directly and simultaneously accessible, so it is also possible with Aeviternity.

So how are we – as temporal creatures – supposed to approach those in the afterlife, who are experiencing an Aeviternal existence? How are we supposed to map our temporal experience to the Aeviternal reality of the beyond?

The link between Temporality and Aeviternity

The fact that we are temporal creatures during life in no way changes the fact that the afterlife is always and everywhere Aeviternal. In other words, the afterlife is always spiritually accessible as an “Eternal now” to us who still walk the earth: in our prayers we have access to every single moment in that one Aeviternal moment simultaneously. One second we can pray as if someone was halfway through their purgatorial journey, asking God to give them strength and resilience and help them to repent of whatever sins are still clinging to their soul; The next second we can pray and praise God as if that same person had just completed their purification and been admitted into heaven; And the second right after that we can pray as if that very same person had only just died and arrived on the doorstep of Purgatory, with a long and arduous mission of repentance ahead of them, involving much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

All of these moments are directly accessible to us temporal creatures: all of them are always and everywhere simultaneously connected to the present moment in which we live. In this way, it is paradoxically appropriate to praise God that someone is in Heaven while simultaneously petitioning him to help them on their way while they are in Purgatory. To us here on earth the fact that someone is in Heaven and that same someone is in Purgatory are simultaneous realities, because they are both Aeviternal moments

Understanding this, suddenly both the Protestant and the Catholic funerals make perfect sense: The Protestants are focusing on the “final” moment in the Aeviternity in which the soul has completed it’s purification in Purgatory and is being admitted into Heaven and immutable eternity proper, which is a wonderful, glorious, joyful event. On the other hand the Catholics are focusing on the “first” moment in the Aeviternity, which is very solemn and serious as the soul has just entered Purgatory and will have to undergo severe, painful, and what may even be experienced as everlasting purifications. Both these first and final moments in the “eternal now” of Aeviternity are completely valid moments to focus on at a funeral. Even more interestingly, this means that it is both appropriate to pray for a soul in purgatory, but also to simultaneously ask that soul to pray for you on the assumption that they are a Saint in Heaven.

What does Scripture say?

1 Corinthians 15:51-52

51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Protestants often refer to the 1 Corinthians passage to justify their disbelief in purgatory. They make a big fuss of the phrase “we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye“. They will say that this passage proves that afterlife sanctification is instantaneous and does not require the purgatorial process that Catholics insist upon. If we must take this passage as a reference to post-death sanctification rather than the parousia and resurrection, it in no way conflicts with the idea of Purgatory. It is simply honing in on the “eternal now” aspect of Aeviternity. It is true that Aeviternity is a process of change, however this process of change occurs “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye” from our perspective here on earth. From our temporal perspective, the process of Purgatory is only just starting, but it is simultaneously already complete. It is the “eternal now”: everything present “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye”

The 2 Peter passage is also good for illustrating what an “eternal now” is like. Time expands and contracts in the strangest ways: a day lasts for eternity but at the same time a thousand years can be over faster than you have time to blink. This helps to shed some light on what it’s like to experience “time” in Purgatory: Aeviternity is simultaneously “everlasting” and “instantaneous”. It is correct to think that our purification will be complete in the twinkling of an eye, but it is also simultaneously correct to think that it will involve a long long process of afterlife repentance and suffering

Funerals Revisited

christ-victorious[1].jpg

Consider again the Catholic funeral. This time the poor soul in question was a suicide. Moreover he had a terrible record of sinful indulgence. He was a rapist, a murderer, a terrorist. He died with blasphemies on his lips. It’s a great wonder that he has even been granted a Catholic funeral at all. The people gathered at this funeral – if there are any – would be fighting hard to muster dredges of hope for this dead maniac. They hope for purgatory at best, but really; all signs point to Hell. There is a mood of doom and gloom left behind in the wake of the deceased. People hesitate to pray for him, because it is almost a foregone conclusion that he has descended to Hell – from which there is no escape – and so prayers would be pointless. There is minimal hope that he has made it to the Aevum, most are resigned to the idea that he is suffering unspeakable, everlasting, eternal tortures in Hell. Some of his victims may even take some comfort in believing that this is the case.

Consider again the Protestant funeral. This time it is the apostate son of the local Pastor. Died during a drug overdose. He grew up knowing the truth, and then rejected it. Read this crushing word from Hebrews 6:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

“It is impossible” for him, haven fallen away “to be brought back to repentance”. Everyone at the funeral knows full well that this boy has abandoned the faith, to the perpetual disappointment and shame of his faithful and ministering mother and father. This is a prodigal son who never returned home; one who died in his sins, in a state of rebellion and spiritual poverty. The people gathered to mourn his passing may grasp at straws for some sort of hope. Some of them might be of the “Once saved always saved” persuasion. But undoubtedly everyone will be disheartened and discouraged by his being completely devoid of any evidence of saving faith, implicit or explicit at the point of his death. Deep down, everyone knows that he’s in Hell. Sure, during the eulogy his father may throw out some platitudes about God’s will being mysterious and how we can only trust in his mercy, but he’s had too good of a Calvinist theological training to honestly believe what he’s saying.

In both the funerals, despair is sovereign. There is no confident, hopeful assurance of salvation in either case. But why should this be so? Doesn’t it seem that the people are focusing on the sinners individual actions and life far more than on God’s Grace and mercy? They are making salvation depend on the response of the sinner. But the scriptures are emphatic that salvation is by Grace: God saves us, we don’t save ourselves. Surely these despairing responses reflect a failure to trust in God’s promise to save us? We forget that where sin abounds, Grace abounds all the more. These people’s sins should not cause us to consider them “eternally lost” and consign them to Hell. We should be ever rejoicing in the unconditional gift of salvation. God will leave the 99 sheep to find the 1 who is lost and bring it back to the flock. We should be able to stand at anyone’s funeral and confidently proclaim their entrance into Heaven, regardless of how they lived or died. We should also be able to attend anyone’s funeral and offer up prayers of petition that they be helped on their journey through the tortures of Purgatory towards Heaven. We should be able to go to any funeral and pray as if they have entered into Aeviternity. Never be distracted by the life and works of the sinner who stands under judgement. Heaven should always be assumed, never Hell. Strong hope and abundant Joy should always be experienced at every funeral, not despair and crippling depression. Always focus on the victory of Christ, the promise of the Spirit, and the Grace, Mercy and Love of the Father.