The Glory of God is Man Fully Alive

Our theological year throughout Mr. Cole's class has been filled with sacraments, history of the Church, the nature of Christ, and heresies about the Holy Trinity. However out of all of these topics, one stands out to me as the most important. This is the motto "The Glory of God is Man Fully Alive" that Mr. Cole loves to appropriate with "Stockwell" (a classmate) (#insidejoke) (to all you classy twitter fanatics out there).

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this phrase. To me, Man Fully Alive is more than just a simple phrase; it constitutes a way of life. When you break down the very meaning of a "Man Fully Alive", it is possible to reach some questions. First, what does it mean to be 'fully alive' in contrast to just 'alive'? I think the most important contrast is that "fully alive" gives mankind's existence a connotation with a purpose. God created man in His image, giving us intellect and free will and the capacity to love. Therefore, we can say that man's purpose is to use the gifts of God, to strive to become more like God. This last explanation is the very meaning of a Man "Fully Alive". When a man realizes his purpose in life, and does everything to actualize and practice this purpose, he is a Man Fully Alive.

Now, let's get to the meaning of the entire phrase. "The Glory of God " means that God's Glory, God's 'thumbs up' is best understood in the context of a man fully alive. So, after piecing the two terms together, we know that God's Glory IS man's striving to be more like Him. God's Glory isn't the building huge shrines from some misplaced notion that throwing money at the Church without a true intention. God's Glory, the very way we see God in the world is man following Christ.

So after going through this phrase and what it means to me, I think a little reflection time on the year is at hand. First, I think this year was BY FAR the best year of theology in my life (I've been to CCE) in terms of learning more about my faith. From asking some pretty tough questions to Mr. Cole and getting back great answers, I've learned more about my faith this year than I have in the past 15 combined.  From learning about the nature of God, to learning about the one True Catholic Church, to learning about current issues in Catholic society, I'm certainly glad to have taken (even though it wasn't optional) this course.

Thanks Mr. Cole for a great year.

Man.

-atohme

The History of Anointing

The history of anointing has many roots in the Bible. One of the earliest passages in the Old Testament that talk about anointing is the anointing with oil of the early Kings of Jerusalem. A specific Biblical example of this was the anointing of David, who was chosen the youngest of all his brothers to rule the Church. However, outside of the Bible, Apostolic Tradition in 235 A.D. included one of the earliest liturgies and a rite for anointing of the sick. However, outside of the Christian Rites and the Bible, the earliest reference of anointing of the sick also comes in the Magisterium, which is the teaching body of our Church. The Magisterium defined this teaching in the the letter of Pope Innocent I, which is hard to come by. Furthermore, Anointing is a Sacrament, meaning it is a sign of grace from God that is given to humanity. The first council, meaning a group of CHurch officials, that described that Sacrament was the Council of Florence in the year 1439. The effect of the sacrament is to cure the mind, body, and soul. In summary, anointing is usually done with oil and is supposed to be done when a person is close to death.

All You Need to Know About Communion

Communion is one of the most important parts of the Christian mass because it represents our taking of the Eucharist given to us by Christ at the Last Supper. Further, the Catholic Church is called Catholic because of its universal nature. This might lead some people to imply that all people are allowed to have communion and partake in the body of Christ. However, this is not the case. There are specific criteria to be able to take communion. Catholic.com explains that, “The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.”

Therefore, Catholics who are in a good state of grace and have confessed their mortal sins are eligible to partake in the Communion of Christ. However, another part of the Church are non-Catholics and to see if they are eligible for communion or not. Catholic.com explains again that, “Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.”

-atohme

Reflection on the Priesthood and Today's Culture

It seems like there has been a shift in society's view of priests and other clergymen. Hundreds of years ago, the Priesthood was an extremely respectable position. Many intelligent and capable young men took up being a pastor as their trade. This is no longer the case. It's not to say that the Priesthood is not respected; it is still a respectable position, even through society's lenses. However, something about the Priesthood seems separate from the rest of our culture. Something about it just doesn't fit. To an outside viewer, it appears as if the priests have ostracized themselves into a sort of cultural isolation.

Priests are supposed to be separate from the rest of society. They are the brave men who have answered God's call and who have given their lives completely to God. As one priest in the video said, "Being a priest is not natural: it's supernatural." Being a priest is not, per say, normal.

Here is where the Priesthood runs into some issues with today's culture. Even though being a priest is not normal, the pool of men that the Priesthood draws from--every man that has ever lived--is made up of normal guys. Rather than seeing joining the Priesthood as an act of bravery and answering God's call, an average man in today's culture would view it as simply separating himself from the mainstream (with negative implications).

To change this perception of joining the Priesthood, either the Priesthood or society would have to change. The Priesthood cannot just arbitrarily change though, as it was instituted by Christ and only Christ can change it. Until society views priests as normal members of a community, this perception will remain.

Faith or Reason?

A controversial topic today in Catholic and scientific communities is whether we should look to faith or reason to decide our beliefs. The Catholic Teaching says it is a mixture of the two, while the scientific community is solely based on our reason. This blog post will explain a few of the tenants on faith and reason and why we should strike the right balance between the two.

Why need Faith?

Faith is one of the most important parts of Catholic Teaching. In fact, much of Catholic theology is based on faith. We see many Biblical references to the clash between faith and reason, such as when God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac on the mountaintop. In this example, the contrast between faith and reason is clear- should we follow what we think to be God's words, which might tell us to kill; or should we follow the Ten Commandments and not kill? The Bible makes it pretty clear which one is the victor in this situation. Abraham decides to choose for faith, and just about as he is going to plunge the blade in Isaac's heart, God tells Abraham to stop. This dilemma gives a clear-cut reason why we should consider faith at all, because it is based in the Bible.




The second reason why we should use faith is because when you think about it, there is no way to 100% tell if God exists or not until after death. This means what we should use our faith, and believe in something that our reason cannot access for certain, in order to consider following God's commandments at all.

The third reason why we need faith is to believe in the teachings of the Church that might not make too much sense. The most clear teaching of the Church that confuses many people is the concept of the Holy Trinity, that there are three Persons but all part of the same substance.

Does this mean we shouldn't use reason?

Absolutely not! Reason is something essential to our Catholic Faith because, like faith, we can use it to reason about the existence of God, the validity of the Sacraments, Church Teachings (and so on). To completely discard reason would be to completely disregard the fact that God created us with intelligence, and free will, which is not right.

So, what should we do?

We should find the right balance between faith and reason. Catholicism is not just a bunch of random beliefs, it is a religion dedicated to central teachings which are aided by our use of both faith and reason.

-atohme

Forgetfulness

You may recall that I wrote about laziness in a previous blog post. At the very end I proclaimed, "I now feel doubly obligated to get my blog posts in on time as if I do not this post would become atrociously hypocritical." Sure enough, last Monday, I show up to school and feel pretty ashamed of myself. A greeting from my blog partner and a "Hey did you do your blog posts?" accomplishes this feeling. This time however, it was not directly due to laziness (I am no hypocrite). I simply forgot.

Laziness has a clear theological explanation. After the fall, concupiscence entered the world. Concupiscence causes man to be selfish, in particular with his time. Thus, man has a tendency to be lazy. But forgetfulness (if you'll excuse my rhyme) is a bit more hazy. 

On one hand, forgetfulness is a consequence of laziness. Using my personal example, if I had written down my blog assignment in my planner, I most likely would not have forgotten about it. I was too lazy to take out my planner, and thus forgot I had work to do. This would mean that forgetfulness is another consequence of the concupiscence man has inherited from Adam and Eve. 

On the other hand, people do not intend to forget things. The nature of forgetfulness is that something simply never crosses someone's mind. There is no will or action involved; a moral decision is not made. This is distinct from the omission of an action, as choosing to omit an action is still a choice in itself. Because there's no real choice involved, it is hard to put someone at moral fault for forgetting something. 

This is why I say forgetfulness is a bit hazy in relation to whether or not it is caused by Original Sin. It all comes back to this question: did man forget even before the fall? In short I would say yes forgetfulness is caused by Original Sin and the fall, but distinct from laziness. The Catholic Church teaches that Original Sin darkened human will and weakened human intellect. A weakened human intellect would also involve a weakened memory, hence forgetfulness.

This concludes my two-part series on laziness and forgetfulness. If I am lazy or forget again, I will admit to my hypocrisy but will not make a blog post exclusively covering it.

-Shoe