I started my Fall theology class today, which is called “Sources and Methods”. It gets into the essence of what theology is and how we go about approaching the subject. Fr. David, our teacher, talked about divine revelation today, so naturally, we looked at Dei Verbum, which is the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation issued by the Second Vatican Council. Fr. David said that the first sentences of Chapter 1 are a fundamental statement worth learning, so as a part of my effort to learn it, I’m going to write it out in my blog.

It has pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the secret purpose of his will (see Eph 1, 9). This brings it about that through Christ, God’s Word made flesh, and in his holy Spirit, human beings can draw near to the Father and become sharers of the divine nature (see Eph 2, 18; 2 Pt 1, 4).

That was from the Tanner translation which Fr. David gave us in a handout. I found the structure of the second sentence a little awkward so I decided to look in the Flannery translation, which is the more widely available (and less expensive) English translation of the Vatican II documents.

It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will (see Eph 1:9), which was that people can draw near to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature (see Eph 2:18; 2 Pet 1:4).

Although the Flannery translation is easier to read, it doesn’t say quite the same thing. Flannery’s seems to say that God revealed the fact that people can draw near to the Father. The Tanner translation says that God’s revelation brings about the opportunity for people to draw near to the Father. That is, according to Flannery, without God’s revelation, we would not have known we could draw near to the Father, but according to Tanner, we would not have been able to draw near to the Father.

I did a little research in the original Latin, and according to my limited knowledge of the language, the Tanner translation is closer. It’s amazing what you can find if you just do a little digging. Unfortunatley, I only have a photocopy of a few pages of Tanner’s Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. I will need to someday couch up the $140 required to get the whole thing because I think it would be helpful. Also, I need to learn Latin better, which I may work on after I’ve gotten better at Greek. Oh, and today Fr. David mentioned a good book in French for which there is no good English translation. Of course, I have several books on my shelves in English that I haven’t had time to read yet! I’m glad this life isn’t all we have because if it was, it would be discouraging trying to fit everything in. Of course, if this life was all we had, I don’t think I’d be very interested in Theology.

I just read the following quote from St. Teresa of Avila which is consistent with what I’ve heard of her as someone who is quick witted and spoke her mind. In the passage this quote comes from she is saying that we should approach God in prayer with humility and that we shouldn’t be seeking “consolation”, which is the nice feeling we sometimes feel in prayer. She goes on to say,

Although if some consolation is felt, it shouldn’t cause the disturbance and pain it does to some persons who think that if they aren’t always working with the intellect and striving for devotion all is lost - as though so great a blessing could be merited by their labor. I don’t say that they shouldn’t strive carefully to remain in God’s presence, but that if they can’t even get a good thought, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, they shouldn’t kill themselves. We are useless servants, what do we think we can do?

I think it is important to be serious about our walk with God, but not take ourselves too seriously. We need to do the best we can, and then not be upset when we stumble and fall, and even our best is not very good. We must remember we are useless servants so that we don’t think too much of ourselves in our victories, or go into despair in our failures.

I’m on Dr. Ambrosio’s email list, and today’s mailing included an article on Faith vs. Works. Dr. Ambrosio happens to be a member of my parish, and used to be a professor at the University of Dallas, but now he’s primarily a conference speaker, and he has his website which is full of good articles and resources. He is very much in the Catholic mainstream, but I find his writing very understandable from a Protestant perspective, which is not the case with a lot of Catholic writers I’ve encountered. Unfortunately, like a lot of arguments in this world, much of the problem stems from each side missing the essential points of the other side. However, from time to time people emerge that are able like C. S. Lewis and Pope Benedict XVI who are able to articulate their beliefs in a way that outsiders can understand.

Here is a quote from the article that I believe beautifully captures the point of the Faith and Works issue.

Biblical faith is not just belief.  It is surrender.  It is a complete entrusting of oneself to God in Christ and acceptance of his power, his will, and his plan.  If we truly say yes to Him and let his grace into our hearts, we’ll never be the same.  His love begins to work through us and change our lives.  His Spirit takes up residence within us, giving us the strength to do what we could never do on our own, even to begin to love like He loves.

So true biblical faith is not passive.  It is active, dynamic, and alive.  That’s why St. James says that faith without works is dead (James 2:24-26).  Abraham believed that an unknown God was calling him to leave civilization and march into the desert to find a land that this God has promised him.  He did not sit and contemplate this call or set up a shrine to this God.  He got up and began walking (Genesis 12).

So we justified by faith, if we mean the authentic biblical faith that causes us to walk in God’s ways.  And we are justified by works, if we mean the works of charity that can only flow from faith and grace.

So really, it’s not faith vs. works.  It’s faith that works.

I’m studying for my Patristic and Byzantine Theology final, and I’m rereading First Principles written by Origen between 220 and 230. Here is a passage I have marked as “The Rule of Faith”.

When we find many who think they hold the doctrine of Christ, some of them differing in their beliefs from the Christians of earlier times, and yet the teaching of the church, handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles, is still preserved and continues to exist in the churches up to the present day, we maintain that that only is to believed as the truth which in no way conflicts with the tradition of the church and the apostles.

I just read a beautiful interview with Annie Herring, who used to be a member of the band, “The 2nd Chapter of Acts”. The interview is about an album they did in the 70s called “The Roar of Love”, which was kind of a gospel, Jesus-music, rock opera inspired by The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis. I bought the album on cassette tape when I was 17 and a new Christian, and I listened to it over and over again. The interview brought back many memories, so I’ve put the CD on my wish list.

I made a claim in a previous post that Christianity was responsible for the development of hospitals, which seemed to be called into question by a comment I received. I also today got a free subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica for use on my weblog that allows me to link to articles. I thought I would put this subscription to use with this hospital article. A quick read of the history of hospitals shows that the Church did play a significant role in their development. The Wikipedia article is not as detailed, but does mention the Christian role.

It’s been several months now since the latest encyclical letter from Pope Benedict was issued. This was the first encyclical that I read all the way through, and it is very good. The theme is that we need hope, and that ultimate hope can only be found in Christ. That’s nothing new for anyone who knows the basics of the Christian faith. What is astounding and important about this encyclical is the way Pope Benedict makes this case in terms that relate to the prevailing ideas of our world, especially as found in Europe. He is speaking of those who have already written off Christianity as having no relevance for true hope, relying instead on politics, education, economics, or technology to provide hope for the future.

There is a lot of good stuff in there that I won’t comment on here, choosing to focus on how he addresses the hope people put in technological progress. When I was a teenager, I completely embraced that hope until I came to a point where I wanted something more. This desire led to Christianity, which gave me my ultimate hope, but I did not initially find good answers to the issue of technological progress. This encyclical is the best treatment of this question I’ve found so far.

Here are a couple of quotes that I found particularly thought provoking. I provide them hoping that you will check out the rest of the letter and benfit from the treasures found there.

 First we must ask ourselves: what does “progress” really mean; what does it promise and what does it not promise? In the nineteenth century, faith in progress was already subject to critique. In the twentieth century, Theodor W. Adorno formulated the problem of faith in progress quite drastically: he said that progress, seen accurately, is progress from the sling to the atom bomb. Now this is certainly an aspect of progress that must not be concealed. To put it another way: the ambiguity of progress becomes evident. Without doubt, it offers new possibilities for good, but it also opens up appalling possibilities for evil—possibilities that formerly did not exist. We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man’s ethical formation, in man’s inner growth (cf. Eph 3:16; 2 Cor 4:16), then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world.
(N. 22)

In this next quote, I was particularly struck by the fact that anything we might do to ensure moral goodness in future generations requires the loss of moral freedom. If people have true freedom, then they have freedom to be evil. We will never build a political system that will guarantee a perfect society.

 Let us ask once again: what may we hope? And what may we not hope? First of all, we must acknowledge that incremental progress is possible only in the material sphere. Here, amid our growing knowledge of the structure of matter and in the light of ever more advanced inventions, we clearly see continuous progress towards an ever greater mastery of nature. Yet in the field of ethical awareness and moral decision-making, there is no similar possibility of accumulation for the simple reason that man’s freedom is always new and he must always make his decisions anew. These decisions can never simply be made for us in advance by others—if that were the case, we would no longer be free. Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning. Naturally, new generations can build on the knowledge and experience of those who went before, and they can draw upon the moral treasury of the whole of humanity. But they can also reject it, because it can never be self-evident in the same way as material inventions. The moral treasury of humanity is not readily at hand like tools that we use; it is present as an appeal to freedom and a possibility for it.
(N. 24)

Last week I went to a meeting of technology directors and teachers in the Catholic schools of the Dallas Diocese. Some of them talked about using Twitter, which I earlier played with but had not had much use for. I decided to go back to it and follow some of the Education Technology folks using Twitter.

I’m starting to like using it to post little snippets of interesting things I find on the web, more like what the original concept of a weblog (origin of the term “blog”) was. Twitter has a message size limit of 140 characters, which keeps one from writing a long post. This has the effect on me of encouraging me to go ahead and post something, even when I don’t have a lot of time, because I can’t write a real long post. All that to say that I have another alter ego on Twitter which you can check out if your so inclined.

By the way, the question above the input box on Twitter is, “What are you doing?” A lot of people use Twitter as a way to broadcast their current mood or activity. I’m a little too private for much of that, so I will tend to restrict my posts to things I consider more informative.

I’m now on MySpace and Facebook, in case you’re interested. I still prefer “old-fashioned” email and IM for communication, but these other services can be useful sometimes. I’ve been able to reconnect with several people through Facebook; I’ve only just started on MySpace.