Just when the course load was starting to get a little bit stressful, Mardi Gras came along. Being seminarians, priests, and religious sisters we (for the most part) behaved ourselves. That said, things got a little crazy. There were beads... lots of beads.

Seminarian Noah and Deacon William at the beginning of the evening's festivities. Nice hat, Noah (it's Noah's birthday).

Pictured here are the rector of the seminary, Monsignor Wojcicki, and His Royal Highness, Barry.

Here the first year theologians are serving up some red beans, rice and gumbo.

This is a shot of the whole crowd.

Watch out for Sister Priscilla and those beads! Yikes!

Later in the evening there was Mardi Gras Jeopardy followed by two ridiculously funny videos put together by the first year students. This event was organized by the first year students. They did an outstanding job.

The evening was a lot of fun. Tomorrow we begin the season of Lent with a day of recollection, which is essentially a 1-day in-house silent retreat.

On a side note, it has been a year since I was in Rome and thus about a year since I decided to apply to the seminary. It's amazing how time flies.

Every once in a while, Clint over at bismarckmandanblog.com takes a jab at Catholicism. He's sincere in his concern that Catholics are being led astray and feels an obligation, out of charity (which is good) to help us. But I do feel he is misunderstanding many things about the Church. Being a seminarian studying for the priesthood I feel obligated to present the opposing viewpoint to his readers.

Recently he responded to an article in the Dakota Beacon about Our Lady of Guadalupe and all things Catholic. This may be a little strange without reading Clint's argument, but I spent so much time cobbling together a response that I hate to lose it. So I am posting it here anyway. It is very possible that I have made some philosophical or theological errors in here, hopefully minor ones. I know I have in the past. I'm learning. If you notice an error, please tell me.

Worship, revere, or esteem Mary?

In citing Luke 8:21, “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it,” Clint is supporting his position that family ties are less important in the eyes of Jesus than those of obedience to the will of God. If I’m reading him right, Clint is saying that Catholics wrongly put Mary in a position she does not deserve or claim, based upon her position as the biological mother of Jesus. I agree, as does the commentator in my Catholic Bible, that this passage is expressing the importance of seeking God’s will and of obedience to it over those of familial relationships.

Where our views differ is that Catholics hold Mary in high esteem because of her obedience, service to God, and the fact that God CHOSE HER to be His earthly mother. It seems to me that Jesus is not excluding Mary from his family or diminishing her importance in Luke 8:21. Consider that when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary as described in Luke 1:26-38, the angel announced that she is to be the mother of Jesus, even though she is yet a virgin. Confused, but humble and trusting in the Lord, she assents, saying “May it be done to me according to your word.”

The same holds for my understanding of Clint’s other citations from John: “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Mary is the perfect example of someone who heard the word of God and kept it. Mary proclaims, in Luke 1:46-49, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty one has done great things for me, and holy is his name." Mary does not promote herself. Instead, she humbly praises God for His goodness to her and for the opportunity to serve Him. Imagine if God asked you to become the mother of a child, even though you were not married, in a culture that could stone you for such a sin. Most of us would plead to God to be spared the difficulty of facing ridicule, raising a child that was not our own, etc. This was not easy. But Mary’s response was a resounding “yes” to God, even though what He asked of her was difficult.

I’ll try to summarize all that. Catholics foster devotion to Mary because:

• She was chosen by God for the task of being His earthly mother.
• She trusted God completely and said “yes” to His will, even when it was difficult.
• She is an EXAMPLE of holiness, but (and I repeat) NOT the object of worship.
• We love Mary because she’s the greatest saint.

Mary, a mediator between God and Man?

In asserting that Christ is the only mediator between God and man, Clint quoted I Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all.” Clint also sees problems with the second half of the “Hail Mary” prayer in which we ask Mary to “pray for us sinners.” The theological understanding is that Christ is the only bridge between God and humanity … because only He was both fully God and fully man. It is only by His incarnation that we are redeemed and saved. I think we agree on that.

Having said that, I point out the verses immediately preceding the quote that Clint used from I Timothy: “First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” (I Timothy 2:1-4) Verses 1 through 4 point out that prayer for others has value in the eyes of God. If your friend is sick and he asks you to pray for him, you will do it, right? You will ask God for his quick recovery. You are interceding for your friend, by prayer, to God. In the same way, we ask Mary in Heaven for her prayers. This pleases God.

Sacraments are required?

As Clint pointed out, the “sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” (CCC 1129) I understand “sacraments of the New Covenant” to mean actions performed at the instruction of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. The sacraments help us to live lives in accord with the Gospel. God works through the sacraments – the grace bestowed comes from Him (as if grace could come from anywhere else).

Faith Alone vs. Faith and Works

I must admit my own understanding of faith vs. works has been increased through this discussion, which is excellent. It is not a simple issue that can be resolved by simply quoting from Romans or James. More study is needed.

Faith and works are necessary. Read James 2:14-24, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,’ but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. … You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. … See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. … For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

But wait… this seems to contradict other quotations in the Bible, such as "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." Romans 3:20. Because we all believe the Bible cannot contradict itself, we must be misunderstanding something here.

Stolen from www.catholic.com: “Paul categorically excludes works from our salvation. But what kind of works is Paul talking about? If we believe the entire Bible, we need to see how Paul’s words fit together with James’s words, because James clearly says that ‘a man is justified by works.’ If Paul and James mean the same thing by works, then they contradict one another. Since you and I both believe that the Bible cannot contradict itself, we must agree that Paul and James mean two different things by the word works.”

For an explanation of this seeming contradiction, I strongly encourage anyone to read the rest of the article I just quoted by visiting the URL below. It is too long to include here.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

The VCR analogy

I laughed after reading Clint’s VCR programming analogy. It’s clever. I can extend the analogy a little bit to explain my point of view. To get the most out of your VCR, you must read the instruction manual. It was written by the people in the know. But the manual is not the VCR. It may explain parts of the VCR. It may explain the VCR in more detail than we can comprehend (especially if it has a Chinese section in the back). But if you never look up from the manual, you might not see the true reality of machine sitting in front of you on the table.

My point is that the Catholic Church has faith in a God who is active in His people today and in history. There are even a few points in more recent history when something extraordinary happened that could not be explained away and (this is important) which had powerful, positive results, like the Our Lady of Guadalupe apparition.

Faith in Apparitions

I’ll end with a discussion of such apparitions. Until I heard Mark Armstrong give a presentation on Our Lady of Guadalupe, I did not understand the image. It is plastered all over the seminary. It’s on the taxi cabs in Saint Louis, where I am studying. If you go to Mexico or Central America, you probably can’t walk ten feet in a city without being able to see the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. It is a powerful image for many people in the world.

Before I understood the story of the Guadalupe apparition in its historical context, I rather disliked the image myself. It seemed, as Clint would see it, far too important to many Catholics. And besides, it looks weird. But after hearing the story, I came to see the Our Lady of Guadalupe apparition as a powerful manifestation of God’s love for all of humanity.

Supposedly, through the power of God, Mary appeared in Mexico. She asked that a Catholic church be constructed (she sent Juan Diego to the Catholic bishop with this request) in her honor. The church was built and in that church God is worshiped, not Mary. This apparition has converted millions of people. It brought them to the Church, where they encountered Christ.

One final footnote to that remark is that belief in such apparitions is not essential to the Catholic faith. The apparitions and miracles that seem to occur are investigated thoroughly and critically by the Vatican before they are deemed “acceptable” for belief by Catholics. They are judged so if they do not conflict with Christian teaching. If there are no problems, miracles may be approved for belief. Very seldom does this occur.

Acceptance of the miracle by the Vatican, however, does not force anyone to believe the miracles or apparitions occurred. Miracles and apparitions are said to be for those who receive them – not necessarily for everyone. I don’t have to believe that Our Lady of Guadalupe is real to be a Catholic. It is secondary and truly insignificant to my faith in Christ.

---

I've got much to learn...

I've been researching the "faith alone" and "faith with works" debate. Reading Clint's postings had me a little confused and concerned. But no more. "Faith alone" didn't make sense to me, but Clint was supporting it with scripture. The Bible is big and it's tough to wrap your head around and get the right idea. Thankfully, we're not the first ones to think about this.

Clint's understanding is that put forth by the Baptist Church. My understanding is the one put forth by the Catholic Church, which has an unchanging understanding of these matters across 2000+ years of history. Both positions can be seemingly supported all day by quoting scripture, discussing the proper translation from Greek, etc, etc.

My point is that these are important issues that deserve serious consideration ... much more than we can get on this blog, unfortunately. I suggest anyone interested in understanding the debate check out these books:

Born Fundamentalist, Reborn Catholic by David B. Currie, especially chapter seven.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, especially chapter thirteen.

Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn

Yes, they present the Catholic view. But the arguments are powerful and much better than anything I could post here. Read them and evaluate their arguments for yourself and think critically about your religion. If reason conflicts with your faith, you're treading on thin ice.

The Catholic understanding is solidly based on Scripture - even if I cannot articulate it myself (I'm still new at this). The authors above do excellent jobs of explaining the debate in light of scripture.

Get out there and research the issue honestly. Thanks for the catalyst of this blog. It has strengthened my understanding of these issues and excited me for courses in scripture that begin with my theology studies next year.

Unfortunately for me, I have spent far too much time on this issue this week and my homework is suffering. Any other comments I have will have to be minimal. Midterms are coming soon.

God Bless
-Jason

Watch out for Walter the Squirrel. This was my favorite Superbowl commercial. Enjoy.

Well, it's funny for a philosophy student. Go Greeks!

Not long after studies resumed last month the possibility of a very good summer job came up. It sounds as if I will be working with technology for the summer, earning some needed cash. So that's good. Unfortunately, thinking about summer caused me to think about not studying. And riding bike. That's when I caught spring fever.

To make the situation that much worse I discovered that I have a fairly lengthy spring break in March. Hmm... how to spend it? How about another cycling adventure in the Southwest? My biking buddy Jesse and I took a similar trip, back in 2003. That was section 2 of the Adventure Cycling Association's Southern Tier cross country route. Jesse and I started talking about the possibility of riding section one over spring break. After a little research we bought our plane tickets. We'll fly into San Diego, CA, ride bicycle to Phoenix, AZ, and then hop on planes to head back to home and (for me) school.

Coincidentally Justin, my friend from Wisconsin, is also going to be in Arizona during that time. He's flying down to warmer weather for some spring training. He's hoping to put insane mileage on his bicycle in hopes of dominating the Wisconsin cycling scene this year. We might meet up during the ride.

I've got plane tickets, the route maps are on order, and the bike is in o.k. shape. I just need to make sure my body's ready for the challenge of a 425-mile unsupported ride. After all, I've been sitting at a desk reading philosophy for the past five months. It's too cold to ride outside all that much, so I guess it means I'm stuck riding the stationary trainer. I'll just pretend I'm pedaling up the California mountains and through the Arizona desert... At least until I actually get there.