Book Review: "Let There Be No Divisions Among You"

With the subtitle, Why All Christians Should be Catholic, this book is the quintessential unapologetic apologetic! Originally penned in 1887, Let There Be No Divisions Among You, is throwback to the days before political correctness, to a time when people could speak frankly of their differences without fear of ending friendships or being accused of bigotry . It was also a time when people could be troubled to listen to multi-faceted arguments rather soundbites. I loved it. The author, an Irish priest by the name of Fr. John MacLaughlin, appears to have anticipated every possible objection to his points and responds with penetrating logic and whit. Kudos to Sophia Institute for making this available to today's audience.

What can you expect to find between this book's covers? From the Introduction:

When a man has gone so far as to regard religion a a mere matter of opinion, and consequently a matter of choice, he is not likely to choose a difficult one when an easy one will suit his purpose quite as well. Naturally, men are averse to having their intellect bound to definite doctrines and to having their will burdened by difficult obligations....The theory that one religion is as good as another is next neighbor to the theory that there is not much good in any religion at all.

The past century demonstrated the accuracy of Fr. MacLaughlin's analysis. The first section of the book employs reason and Revelation to prove that the specifics of our faith are of great importance to God. Because God is Truth, He cannot be indifferent to whether His people believe one creed or profess its opposite. The God Who gave such minute directives  for the construction of the Ark and Tabernacle under the Old Covenant did not go lax when His Son took flesh to complete that revelation in the New.  Father MacLaughlin demonstrates this point with individual chapters devoted to the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20), the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), and the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35).

The second half of the book is devoted to helping readers identify which, of all the Christian bodies populating the landscape, is the one Church historically founded by Christ. He does so by pointing to two necessary marks of the Church - unity and universality, with chapter-length discussions of each.

My copy of this book has its fair share of highlighting. I have no doubt that every reader will come away with new insights and the sense that he/she is better equipped to converse with and charitably challenge those who champion the "Jesus without religion" mentality. Let There Be No Divisions Among You  (Sophia Institute Press, 2017) is a treasure trove.

"Cephas / Peter" - What's in a Name?

I was honored to pen today's LIFE Runners devotion.  I chose to reflect upon how John's Gospel relates Jesus’ first meeting with Peter, “Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas,’ which is translated Peter” (Jn.1:32).

When I was in college I had a conversation with an evangelist visiting the Baptist Student Union.  (I attended a Bible study sponsored by the BSU.)  This evangelist shared with me how Catholics such as myself had misunderstood Jesus’ words to the Apostle Simon (Peter) in Matthew 16; Jesus was not, as Catholics believed, making Simon the head of His Church on earth (the first Pope).  

He assured me that if I were to study Jesus’ words in Greek, the language of the New Testament, I would be forced to abandon the Catholic position. He elaborated: After Simon had confessed Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus said, “you are Peter [Petros in Greek, meaning “pebble”], and on this rock [petra, Greek for “massive stone”] I will build my church” (Matthew 16:17-18; NIV). The gentleman explained that Simon-Peter was not designated by Jesus as “the Rock” on which the Church would be built; the truth was exactly the opposite! Simon the man was a Petros, an insignificant little pebble. His confession that Jesus was “the Messiah, the Son of the Living God,” on the other hand, was the Petra, or “Rock” upon which the Church would rise. He challenged me to study the Greek for myself.

I eventually did, and it turns out that he was greatly mistaken. [1] The reason that Matthew’s Gospel, in Greek, uses two different words (Petros and petra) is surprisingly simple. Anyone who studied French or Spanish in high school will undoubtedly remember that these languages have masculine and feminine nouns; you can tell which gender a given word is by checking the word ending. The same holds true in Greek. “Petra,” or “massive rock,” is a feminine noun and thus has a feminine ending. It would have been improper to give the name to Simon; when applied to him the ending had to be changed, and thus we see “Petros” instead of “petra.”  Now “Petros” just happened to be an already existing word, which in ancient Greek poetry was used to denote “pebble.” By the time of Jesus, however, “Petros” had lost this restrictive meaning and could be used interchangeably with “petra” to denote a “massive rock.”[2]

Thus far I have been discussing Jesus’ words as found in the Greek of Matthew’s Gospel. We have to remember, though, that Jesus would not have spoken those words in Greek. The everyday speech of a Palestinian Jew was Aramaic. (Hebrew was spoken but reserved for religious ceremony.) Jesus’ use of Aramaic is attested to in the gospels. We hear it in the Our Father – “Abba” is Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek. Matthew and Mark record Jesus’ cry from the cross in Aramaic, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46). So when Jesus made His statement to Simon He would not have used the Greek word “Petros,” but the Aramaic “Kepha;” and “Kepha” can only mean “massive stone.”

This is the word we saw Jesus use in the verse from today’s Gospel with which I started this post, “'you will be called Cephas,’ which is translated Peter” (Jn.1:32). Cephas is simply the Greek spelling of the Aramaic word Kepha.[3]  Paul always referred to Simon as “Cephas” (see 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, and Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). 

Now all these linguistic gymnastics are only meant to bring out the true meaning of Jesus’ words to Simon. He promised a weak, rash man that he would be transformed by grace into the unique foundation of His Church. Some believers still have difficulty accepting this, objecting that Christ is the true Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4). And to this objection Simon-Peter, the current pope, and the Catholic Church would all answer “Amen!” Simon could become the rock on whom the Church is built only because Christ is the Rock on whom Simon-Peter stands. Simon being allowed to share in Christ’s “Rock-ness” is not without precedent: We human beings are allowed to share in God’s act of creating new lives; our participation does not mean that we supplant Him as the Creator. If I am a good teacher it is only because of the One Teacher (Matthew 23:10); if someone is wise it is because of the One Who is Wisdom. And if Simon became a Rock (Kepha/ Cephas/ Peter) for the Church, it is only because Christ made him so. To recognize someone as a parent, or wise, or a good teacher, is not a denial of God the Father or Christ’s fullness and neither is calling Peter the Rock. We are only echoing the Lord; He was the One Who renamed Simon! 

You can read my next post on the papacy, where I look at the passage of Peter's office to others, here.

---

[1]Scott Hahn presents the findings of Herman Ridderbos, R.T. France, W.F. Albright, Gerhard Maier, and Donald Carson in his audiocassette Holy Father: The Pope (St. Joseph’s Communications), the transcript of which is available at <http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/ ~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html>.

A more in-depth look at the scholarship on Jesus’ words to Simon, can be found in Butler, Scott; Norman Dalgren, & David Hess (Eds.), Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Santa Barbara, California: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997) For example:

Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) is cited, “Petros himself is the petra, not just his faith or his confession…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable” (p.31);

Craig Blomberg, a Baptist scholar and Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary says, “Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” (p.32);

R.T. France, a renowned Anglican scholar, in his The Gospel According to Matthew (1985) wrote that, “The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)…it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. And it is of course a matter of historic fact that Peter was the acknowledged leader of the group of disciples, and of the developing church in its early years” (p.36).

[2] James Akin in Surprised By Truth. Patrick Madrid ed. Basilica Press, San Diego. p.68

[3] The technical term for this is transliteration.

Mary's Assumption - the QUINTESSENTIAL Catholic Feast

It really is, just think about it.  By defining the dogma of Mary's Assumption and celebrating it as a Holy Day of Obligation, the Church draws together all the most magnificent elements of our Faith:

The Trinity - into whose life Mary was bodily inserted
Jesus' Resurrection - shared with His Blessed Mother, and eventually with all of us
Salvation - begun in us purely by the grace of God, and brought to perfection through our lifelong cooperation
The Goodness of the Body - that it is not at odds with living a "spiritual life," but is destined for glory
Sacred Tradition - by which we have explicit knowledge of Mary's assumption
Sacred Scripture - by which we have implicit knowledge of her assumption (the image of Rev.12:1-2)
Papal Infallibility - which cemented our knowledge of it
The Communion of Saints - Mary being its most magnificent member and interceding for the Church on earth and in purgatory
The Eucharist - by which we give thanks to God and unite ourselves to Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, just like Mary.

Just a Catholic, or "Charismatic" Catholic?

I am very forthcoming about the positive effect the Catholic Charismatic Renewal had on me.  Our name Catholic literally means "universal, all-embracing;" and the charisms that the Lord brought back to our attention through the Renewal continue to be valid and valuable for the Church of today.  (See CCC 800-801, and CCC 2003).  That said, there are so many beautiful spiritualities within the Church - Carmelite, Franciscan, Dominican, etc., etc. - some demonstrative and others more oriented in silence.  The Lord calls us to Himself along different "roads," and we may change the one we travel several times in the course of our lives.  Each road passes through the Sacraments though; that is common to every Catholic's journey.  Other than the seven Sacraments however, it would be incredibly shortsighted of me, of anyone, to try and absolutize his experience, and require it of someone else (1 Cor.12:29-31).  Jesus is the Good Shepherd, not me - He knows what each of His sheep need far better than anyone else.  (Omniscience is funny that way.)


What is my prayer life like in 2012?  Morning offering with my kids.  Daily Rosary on the way to work.  Conversational prayer throughout the day.  The charism of tongues to praise and intercede.  Read the Gospel of the day.  Chaplet of Divine Mercy on the way home.  Some spiritual reading before bed.  The Eucharist every Sunday, and the occasional weekday Mass when my work schedule allows.  Each November, I start the 33 days of preparation for Total Consecration prescribed by St. Louis Marie De Montfort and renew my consecration on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.  I also enjoy getting together with a good friend every other week or so to study the Carmelites - Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Elizabeth of the Trinity, Therese of Lisieux, and Teresa Benedicta (Edith Stein). I've never felt a pull toward becoming a third order religious and don't feel any desire to refer to myself as anything other than "just a Catholic" - a person who wants to embrace all of the spiritual treasures our Father has deposited in the Church.

It Is What It Is

Sadness, frustration, thankfulness, awe - quite the jumble as I begin to write. My subject? Truth (reality, objective truth, morality). The impetus? People I love. First, there was the email exchange between myself and a Catholic friend struggling with Confession. In the course of things she shared how, at least at this point in her life, Catholicism was not the "end all be all," and that she believed religion was a solution to many people's problems, but that it could be any religion. (I'm really honored that she shared this with me, given my "militant" reputation.) The second thing that inspired this blog was a Catholic friend on Facebook posting her "yes" vote in a poll on gay adoption. Why should these things, these "stances," bother me? Why can't I just roll with the punches and be like, "Hey, what's right for me might not be right for you." You know, if we were talking about what we like on a pizza or which Lethal Weapon movie kicked more ass, I could - honestly, I really could. But when it comes to Faith these things hit me hard. It's personal.

And doesn't faith have to be? For Christians faith isn't the adherence to a list of propositions; it's union with a Person. I can't think of any other world religion whose founder claimed, "I am the Truth." The identity of Jesus, that is the ground of Christianity, its reason d'etre: God, the ground of all reality, our Creator, became a man - a human being who spoke to us and taught us what life is to be. When we adhere to any moral truth, we are in some sense grabbing hold of the Truth, of God's Revelation in Person, Jesus! But isn't the converse also true then - that when we deny the Truth, we are in some sense denying Jesus? And that's serious: "Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). I don't want to see anyone I love - no, I don't want to see anyone period - doing that! Yet, there is this mistaken idea permeating our culture, and the Christians who live in it, that to voice disagreement with another's moral choices - or worse yet, to speak of "sin" - is, quite ironically, the most heinous of sins, intolerance!

But can we honestly think that we are more loving, more tolerant, than Jesus? More than the Apostle Paul? The same person who wrote

Love is patient. Love is kind...it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrong but rejoices in the right...Love endures all things. Love never ends. (1 Corinthians 13:4-6)

also wrote, and in the very same letter no less,

Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [practicing] homosexuals, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers will inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor.6:9-10).

I like the way Fr. John Corapi puts it, "Truth isn't conservative or liberal, left or right. It is what it is, and you're either in it or you're out of it." Tolerance is no "gag order." Tolerance IS NOT holding all views as equally valid - it is the ability to tolerate, to peacefully coexist with, those whose beliefs differ or conflict with yours!

Now Christians, if you hold a view that directly contradicts God's; then can't you see where, logically, you are in the wrong? Christianity is a "revealed" religion - God is coming from the "outside," and speaking His Truth quite clearly. You're free to deny it - God gives you that right and will be tolerant of your choice; but, to a greater or lesser degree, you won't be in union with Him. And as we saw Paul say above, "Do not be deceived..." We didn't create this universe, and we don't get to decide what is right and wrong - those things were established by the same One Who instituted gravity and decreed that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen combine to make water. Denying this reality doesn't make one enlightened or original - it was humanity's first sin (Genesis 3:4-5), older than recorded history and at the root of every evil perpetrated.

Catholicism, as a list of tenets and "religious" practices, may not feel like your "end all, be all," the most important facet of your life - but I would suggest that is because you're not taking it personally. (Ah, see how I'm weaving that back in?) Is there an institutional side? Yes. Will you find creeps mixed in with the "institution"? Yes - and right from the start Jesus told us we would (the Church is like a net containing both good and bad fish [Matt.13:47-48], a field containing both wheat and cockle [Matt.13:24-30] - and will be so until the Final Judgment). And yet, Jesus is at work within the Church. Because not only is it institution, it is His BRIDE, He has made it His very BODY. Despite its sinful members, Jesus has preserved it as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim.3:15). Despite its sinful members, it is the only place where Jesus comes to give us His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist! And if that isn't our "end all, be all;" then I have no idea what else could be.

This Sunday's second reading seems like the perfect way to end:

You must no longer live as the Gentiles (pagans) do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. You did not so learn Christ! - assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus"
(Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, 4:17-21)

And it isn't hard. Open up your Catechism, or go to it online, where you can search any topic you want. Read that Bible. And remember, it IS personal - because Truth is a Person; and we Christians either love and accept Him, on His terms, or we are rejecting Him.

"I Kissed A Girl (and I Liked It)"

So I was sitting at a stoplight the other day - windows down, radio way up, cruising through the pre-sets. Finally...fantastic beat, enjoyable female voice; I proceeded to jam. Wait, what was that? Como say, "What?"

"I kissed a girl and I liked it

The taste of her cherry chapstick

I kissed a girl just to try it

I hope my boyfriend don't mind it

It felt so wrong

It felt so right...

Us girls we are so magical

Soft skin, red lips, so kissable

Hard to resist so touchable

Too good to deny it

Ain't no big deal, it's innocent"

A little research on YouTube later that night told me the song was from Katy Perry's album, Just One of the Boys.

Now I'm right there with Katy - to a point. I too have kissed girls, and really, really liked it. But I'm a dude, and Katy, as you can see, is an attractive, young lady. I think it's a mistake for her to be kissing girls, experimentally or in any other way.

You probably knew I was going to say that though - I mean, the blog is "Just a Catholic"; and it's common knowledge that, at least historically, Christians have believed homosexual behavior to be a sexual sin. The crazy thing is though, even though I "tow the party line," I don't consider myself a homophobe, bigoted jackass, or "hater." And if you'll give me a moment or two I'll explain why:

First, just because we human beings have the ability to do something, it doesn't mean we should. That goes for everything from the use of nuclear weapons, to girls kissing girls, to purchasing a Kenny G album. Seriously, all of us agree that there are some actions human beings shouldn't perform - murder immediately comes to mind as a universal. I can't think of a culture that celebrates theft, treason, betrayal, or slander either. Now I'm not trying to equate homosexual activity with the malevolent sentiments accompanying any of those activities; I simply want to remind you that objecting to certain behaviors is a trait common to all of us.

I'll continue by saying that each of us have struggles, and some much more than others, with strong impulses and inclinations. During my day job I work with young people who have autism and other developmental disorders. I see some strong sensory needs and some very startling attempts to have them met- tactile input sought through slapping your teacher or oral-motor sensation through licking your neighbor's corduroy pants. The overwhelming urge is there; the child didn't choose it, and he/she shouldn't be looked down upon for it. At the same time, however, those are behaviors not deemed acceptable, and we look for ways to help the child meet his/her needs in a different way. Myself, I have seen some of the people I love most struggle with clinical depression. I've seen them not want to get out of bed, to dread living through the next day; and yet, despite those incredibly strong emotions they had the conviction that they had go on, that their lives were a gift from God and that however bleak it appeared, they didn't have the right to end them. And thank God they didn't!

So coming at the issue of homosexuality, or any issue for that matter, as a Christian, I begin with the conviction that we have a Father in Heaven with loving, and specific, desires for His children. We can recognize many of these desires by looking at the moral norms common across the entire globe, engraved upon our hearts you could say. There are a number of moral issues however, where God's will seems murky to us - and many of these seem to cluster around how we express ourselves sexually. I don't think we should be surprised by this - the intensely physical and emotional nature of the act is intoxicating; it's very easy to become confused, to begin following our own impulses and inclinations instead of God's.

This is one of the reasons we Christians believe God spoke to the world through the prophets of Israel, even going so far as to become one of us. He came to cut through the confusion that arises from our impulses and inclinations, whatever their root - genetic, environmental, psychological, social, etc. - and make clear His intentions for us. He spoke with compassion for our condition, compassion for our struggles; but He did not mitigate the Truth. Part of that truth is that homosexual behavior is wrong. Those struggling with same-sex attraction are not helped when we Christians adopt an attitude of, "It's not right for me, but who am I to say for you?" In the midst of depression my loved ones wouldn't have been helped by my saying "Intentionally ending my life isn't right for me, but who am I to say for you?" No, their lives were preserved because of a truth, a conviction, that transcended their psychological bent (and genetic predisposition to depression, in many cases).

When Jesus told His disciples, "Judge not, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1), He wasn't telling them to withhold judgment as to whether a behavior was right or wrong in God's eyes. That ignores the entire rest of the Sermon on the Mount (three chapters in length); that type of interpretation is a complete betrayal of the context. Jesus' very next words were, "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt.7:2-5). In other words, if you want to see our Father's will spread through this earth, you have to begin by letting His Truth transform you; only then can you bring it to your brothers and sisters out of a desire for their well-being, instead of from some false sense of moral superiority.

And what is this Truth that we Christians should bring to our brothers and sisters struggling with same-sex attraction? We find it in those first pages of Genesis, in the creation stories God delivered to the world through Israel:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." So God created man in his own image...male and female He created them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen.1:26-28).
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed (Gen.2:24-25).

The one God (Who is a plurality of Father, Son, and Spirit) created the sexual union of man and woman - a oneness that brings forth a new, third life - to mirror His own inner Life! Human sexual love reflects the Trinity; it is an integral part of the claim that humanity is in God's image! And this inner life of God consists in a love that is freely given, eternally faithful, and overflows with Life. As it is in Heaven, so should it be on earth; that is God's intention for us. So if you're a Christian walking around with the idea that "sex is dirty," drop it. That wasn't the teaching of the Old Testament, of Jesus, or His Church. If you got that idea from a minister or a devout family member, you've been misled.

But homosexual acts do not have a place in God's plan. The male and female complementarity is completely absent, as is the possibility for new life, a child, to emerge from the union. God's plan has been written into our biological makeup; reproduction is possible only through the union of male and female gametes.

If one wants to come at the matter from an evolutionary standpoint, I think one has to recognize that homosexual sex is aberrant. Natural selection favors those traits which aid an organism to survive and pass those traits onto offspring. In nature's book sex is solely about reproduction; impulses and urges are simply a means to an end. Homosexual sex has quite an enemy in natural selection!

Homosexual acts are in conflict then with God's intention for us, both as reflected in biology and special revelation (through Judaism and Christianity). Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association recognized homosexual attraction as a disorder. Our brothers and sisters struggling with same-sex attraction, no matter its origin (whether it be genetic, environmental, etc.), are experiencing a struggle that the majority of us do not. The 1994, Catechism of the Catholic Church expressed it well:

They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter
in their condition.

These brothers and sisters need Truth, not saccharine -coated crap that "I'm o.k., and you're o.k." No, we are all members of a fallen race. I need God's grace, and His people's help and encouragement, to keep moving forward under my own crosses, and people facing same-sex attraction need those same supports to move forward in life despite the sexual impulses and temptations they face. For our culture, and especially the Christians within it, to say otherwise is a betrayal of our call to speak the truth in love.

Let me point you toward some groups helping those with same-sex
attraction:

Courage Community http://couragerc.net/

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality http://narth.com/

And Katy Perry my friend, I like your sound; but out of love I'm telling you that I disagree with your lyrics. Will you give what I've written a little thought? Please? Alright, I'm taking your silence as a maybe. God bless.