The Pope's first homily: setting the tone?

A hat tip to fellow Catholic Blogger Kevin for pointing out the Pope's first homily today. The full text of the 1-page long homily is here. Let me just say, if Pope Francis is setting the tone of his pontificate with this homily, I'm very excited. Consider these key excerpts:

• We can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ.

• When one does not profess Jesus Christ – I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – “Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

• ...in walking, in building, in professing, there are sometimes shake-ups – there are movements that are not part of the path: there are movements that pull us back.

• When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

When is the last time you heard a homily this straightforward and potent? Maybe JPII and Benedict and our own local bishops have talked like this, but I don't recall such simplicity and hard-hitting truths conveyed in a no-nonsense homily in a long time. In this homily, he completely demolishes the phony "Social Justice" (Liberation Theology) movement, saying that good works without Jesus are a "pitiful" secular help organization. He says those not praying to God and Jesus are deceived and (effectively) praying to Satan and are worldly, completely crushing false ecumenism. And most spectacularly, he says that all the bishops and cardinals surrounding him are "not disciples of the Lord" whomever of them are not professing Jesus in their work. Could his reference to "shake ups" be a veiled indication he is going to clean house? 

Maybe I'm getting my hopes too high for what I'm expecting in his homilies and example, but more of this would be just the thing we're lacking in the Church today!

Is Pope Francis a Liberal out to destroy the Faith?

Everyone is understandably stunned by the news about the election of Pope Francis. The traditionalist Catholic blogosphere was especially buzzing with news, most of which was highly critical of the new Pope. In fact, there were times where things got so out of hand that I had to stop reading the comments, for they had crossed the line of decency and fairness which Catholics should be extending to others, especially to the Holy Father. No matter how 'bad' a Pope were to ever get, he still holds a divine office so high and grand that a real and filial level of respect is due. This is not to say that Catholics are to blindly go along with whatever a Pope or bishop does, but that's very different than the level of bashing and vicious attacks that took place almost immediately after the Holy Father made his first appearance. 

I think there can be a fair and sober evaluation that can be made this early on, but we cannot put too much emphasis on assuming the best or worst. Here are my thoughts (in case anyone cares) about the new Pope:

What did Jesus mean by "It is finished"?

Protestants are fond of saying that Catholics reject "the finished work of Christ" since Catholics reject Salvation by Faith Alone. A popular text they appeal to is John 19:30, which mentions the final words of Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished!" By this, they suggest Christ did everything necessary for our salvation, that He paid everything, all that's left is for us to believe. To deny this, they say, is to deny the Gospel. While at first this might sound convincing, it's an unfortunate and serious distortion of a beautiful text. 

The first thing I'd suggest people think about is that Jesus said "It is finished" before He actually died  and before He Resurrected. If someone were to push this too far in the wrong way, it would end up saying the Resurrection and even the Death itself wasn't necessary. (Note: Calvinists technically deny the sufficiency of the Cross, they just don't realize it.) Given this, there needs to be a more careful approach to the text. 

What many don't know is that there is actually a very good explanation to this text that can be discerned simply by examining the context: 

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Notice that the focus of this event was not about Jesus paying the full penalty for sin, but rather about fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy. It was when Jesus received the sour wine (vinegar) that He spoke these words, fulfilling the set up from verse 28. In fact, the Greek word for "finished" only appears twice in John, in verse 19:28 and 19:30, under the same verbal form (tetelestai), strongly suggesting the two go together. And the context shows that a few other Old Testament prophecies were also going to be fulfilled (John 19:31-37). So it should really be understood as "It is fulfilled," or more traditionally, "It is Consummated."

The "fulfill" ("consummated") reading also makes better sense of the Greek term used (see how it's used in Luke 18:31 and Acts 13:29). In the 26 verses the word appears in, only twice is it used to refer to payment, and even in these two verse it only refers to paying taxes (Mt 17:24; Rom 13:6) and not some full payment. In virtually every other verse it's used, it means "fulfill" or "conclude". Given this, it is absolutely astonishing the way many Protestants will over-reach with this word to make it suggest a financial transaction of "payment in full" and completely ignore the Biblical evidence available. 

This is not to suggest that the "It is Consummated" doesn't have a deeper significance than just saying "this one prophecy was fulfilled," but rather that Christ's death is to be understood as the Old Testament said it would happen. For example, Protestants love to point to Jesus on the Cross saying "My God, why have You abandoned me," and claim this verse proves the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus. But any alert reader would know Jesus was intoning Psalm 22, which clearly is speaking of David/Jesus being persecuted by enemies and not being rescued (immediately) by God. This same kind of distortion is happening when Protestants quote "It is finished." In the case of "I thirst," the cross-reference given for this is Psalm 69:21, which is a Messianic Psalm talking about how David was persecuted and insulted by his fellow Jews and now how Jesus is persecuted and insulted by the Jews. Nothing to do with taking someone's punishment or the Father's wrath being dumped on them. 

Hat tip to this Catholic blogger for his work on this verse.

Can those folks "for whom Christ died" be damned? (1 Corinthians 8:11 & 2 Peter 2:1)

Calvinist believe in a doctrine called Limited Atonement. This doctrine is not so much derived from Scripture, but rather from systematic theology: they reason that if Jesus died for everyone, then everyone would be saved, but since everyone is not saved, then Jesus must only have died for a limited number of men. This false dilemma hinges on a fault understanding of the Cross called Penal Substitution, which I've written about frequently. One way to refute Limited Atonement is to show that Scripture speaks of people whom Jesus died for ended up rejecting him and being damned. 

What do you think is worse than an unbeliever? (Another Calvinist conundrum)

In Calvinism, the fundamental thing that separates the saved from the damned is faith. Those to whom God wants to save will be given the gift of faith, while those whom God does not want to save will never be given the gift of faith. In other words, in the Calvinist world view, there's nothing worse than being an unbeliever. But if this is the case, why does Saint Paul say it's possible to be "worse than an unbeliever"? 

I believe 1 Timothy 5:8 is the scariest passage in all of Scripture, for it gives everyone a lot to think about: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." St Paul is talking to Christian parents here, who have a grave obligation to care for their family. For those Christians willfully failing this duty, Paul has a most stern rebuke: they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever. So contrary to Calvinism, what is worse than an unbeliever is a Christian who falls away from the faith.

Anyone who's an adult should have some fear in reading this passage, for they must realize that this could happen to them. But Calvinism expressly denies such a thing is possible. As such, they must try desperately to spin this verse to mean either the person in question was either (a) never really saved, or (b) that a Christian cannot really commit this sin.

The problem with saying they were never really saved is that such an assertion is purely begging the question and even goes against the plain reading of the text. To "deny the faith" in this context is clearly an act of apostasy. While Calvinists believe in apostasy, they just believe anyone who falls into apostasy was never saved, which makes no sense. One cannot fall away if they were never a member to begin with. The language of "worse than" an unbeliever further testifies to the fact this person is not an unbeliever, but rather of another category, that of being saved and not persevering (2 Peter 2:20-21). 

The problem with saying that a Christian cannot really commit this would likewise be begging the question, and even presuming Paul wasn't serious. But even if Paul didn't think a Christian could commit this sin, Paul would still be making an inaccurate theological claim by saying there is such a thing as "worse than an unbeliever."