Sola Scriptura

I know I haven’t posted in such a long time and there is truly no excuse for it.  Hopefully I can get back into the swing of things here and post some interesting stuff to keep people more involved with the blog.

 

So for today’s post, I want to discuss something of a pet peeve/favorite of mine: Sola Scriptura; this is the belief, held by Protestants, that the Bible is the sole infallible authority that Christians can and should use for the purpose of salvation.  With most Protestants, this is not to say that church fellowship and leadership are not important, or that history should not be considered; it simply says that despite the importance of those things and others, only the Bible is capable of being used in an infallible (i.e. unerring) light; the Bible and the Bible alone should be the final authority when it comes to Christian Doctrine, Teaching, and so on.  This is believed for numerous reasons.  One example is that Protestants believe the Bible itself says and proves that it is the only infallible authority; in other words, the Bible proves the Bible’s authority.  You can get a more detailed look of it here.

There are various arguments Protestants use to prove this, and I will bring some of them up later.  Needless to say, it is a very bold and very important statement to make that drastically affects the Christian way of life.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are very few topics of conversation more important than this one.  Is the Bible truly the only infallible authority?  Do arguments in support of it hold water?  The answer to these questions means a great deal to anybody and everybody that professes to be a Christian, for it affects the way we approach nearly every other Doctrine and every other belief.   

 

Ultimately, I believe that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that is untenable and unsustainable, and I will argue so in this post.  But before I do I would just like to say that, like everything posted on this blog, this is not meant to be an attack towards or some form of hatred towards Protestants.  Just the opposite, in fact.  I have many friends who are Protestant, and they are some of my closest friends.  They have helped me to come closer to God in ways I never thought possible.  They are truly Christ-centered and I am blessed to have them in my life.  They are the definition of friends.  And it is because of that that that I want to speak honestly about the errors of Sola Scriptura.  I want to support my friends and other Protestants with the Truth.

 

So what is that truth?  Well, as a Catholic I agree with my Protestant brothers and sisters that the Bible is an infallible source of authority.  The disagreement comes in the idea that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.  I believe there are two others: Sacred Tradition (the oral Word of God (the Bible being the written Word of God)) and the Magisterium (the teaching authority/interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition). 

 

It is beyond the scope of this post to prove the Catholic position of the infallible Trifecta (yes I did just make that name up).  I bring it up merely to show the difference between the Catholic and Protestant faith.

 

So why is Sola Scriptura ungrounded?  There are a few answers that philosophers and theologians have given over the years.  But there is one in particular that I would like to focus on because I believe it is one that many Protestants have not considered before, and that is the question of the Canon of the Bible.

If Sola Scriptura says that Sacred Scripture is the only infallible authority for salvation, then it is perfectly logical and necessary for one to ask: what constitutes as Sacred Scripture?

“Well the Bible does,” a Protestant might say.  “The 66 books that make up the Bible are the ones that are authoritative.”  Sidestepping the issue of how many books truly belong in the Bible, how do we truly know that it is those books and those books only that make up Sacred Scripture?  There is no infallible list of books, no infallible ‘table of contents’ as it were.  So how do we know with any degree of certainty what books belong in the Bible?

 

One response to this might be that certain books may very well claim inspiration from God.  Even if that is the case that cannot be our sole criteria for determining what books are Sacred, for there were many books a couple of millennia ago that claimed the same status and yet would not be considered today as Sacred Scripture, such as the Gnostic Gospels.  I could write a book now and say somewhere within it that it is completely infallible, God-breathed, and is part of the Canon of Scripture; but that in no way makes said book part of the actual Canon.

The only way to get around this is to say that the Scriptures are different because they are the books that are actually inspired by God.  The problem with this form of thinking is that it assumes the very conclusion that one is trying to argue for.  This is what is known in logic as ‘begging the question.’  To ‘beg the question’ is to assume the very point one is trying to prove.  So for the statement ‘I know what is in the Canon of Sacred Scripture because the Sacred Scriptures say they are Sacred Scripture’ to work it must already be implying within the argument itself that the Scriptures as we understand them now should be part of the Canon; but that is the very issue that one is trying to prove.  As a result, the argument actually ends up not working at all.

 

Thus one must have more to their argument than the notion that ‘we know Sacred Scripture is solely authoritative because the books claim to be.’  You cannot say that you know that a particular writing is scripture based on the notion that it claims to be scripture, for it would only work if you already assumed that it is Scripture to begin with

Another response might be that the early Christians knew what books belonged in the Bible.  Even barring the fact that this is not the case, though, even if it were true that the early Christians knew what books belonged in the Bible, a) it is unknown as to why this criteria is a truly valid reason to accept these books and b) this argument actually contradicts the very Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

It is B that I want to focus on in particular. 

If the early Christians, or any source outside of the Bible for that matter, deciding what books belong in the Bible is the reason we have the books in the Bible that we currently have, then wouldn’t that ultimately put the early Christians or other outside sources up on the level of or above the level of Sacred Scripture?  After all, one can say all they want concerning Scripture being infallible and unerring, but seeing as how, as has been shown above, that it is illogical to prove from Scripture alone exactly what books make up Scripture, you have to use some sort of outside source (early Christians, one’s church, etc) to determine what books should be considered as Sacred Scripture.  However, if something other than Sacred Scripture determines what is Sacred Scripture then that something has power that Scripture does not have; in fact, not only does it have power that Scripture does not have, but it has power that, in a sense, controls Scripture; it controls it in the sense that it is ultimately the determiner of what is to be considered Scripture and thus determines the fate of this outcome of infallible books.  It would be, as Tom Brown in his article on the same topic called it, a ‘canon above the canon’ of Scripture. 

 

So if I were to put this in syllogism form it would go something like this:

1.       Sola Scriptura, by definition, requires all sources and forms of authority other than the Bible to be subordinate to the authority of the Bible due to the Bible’s infallibility

2.       The Bible cannot determine, in and of itself, what books constitute the Bible

3.       Thus, another source or authority other than the Bible must be used to determine what books constitute the Bible

4.       Any source or authority that determines which books belong in the Bible must have equal or greater authority in order to do so

5.       Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false

 

Now the above example of early Christian acceptance is just one of numerous tests for the sole infallibility of the books of the Bible that Protestants use; others do exist, such as the idea that only those books attested to by the Apostles in one way or another are part of Sacred Scripture, or the idea that all the Old Testament books that are truly inspired are quoted in the New Testament.  But the point is that regardless of what those tests are  they all force Sola Scriptura to fall because they all, by their very nature, put themselves on equal footing with or above Sacred Scripture in relation to matters of salvation and authority. 

 

Logically speaking, there are only three ways out of this that I can see.  One of them is that if the Protestant says something like: “Well the way I know which books belong in the Bible is by the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit guides me to know what books belong in the Bible.”  Indeed, the Holy Spirit does truly move and act in us to turn our hearts closer to God.  And the argument does not fall into the same trap as other sources of authority because the source in this instance is God Himself.  So of course His authority is equal to or greater than that of the Bible, and that is completely acceptable since God is the author of Sacred Scripture.

 

There is one major issue with this line of reasoning, however: it is too arbitrary.  Yes the Holy Spirit does guide each and every one of us.  However, to suggest that this is adequate enough for an individual person to determine any Christian Doctrine, much less the Canon of the Bible, is not enough because anyone can use the same argument for a contradictory claim.  For instance, a Protestant might feel that the Holy Spirit guided him or her to understand that there are 66 books in the Bible, but a Catholic might feel that the Holy Spirit guided him or her to understand that there are 73 books in the Bible.  So which one is right?  Based on this argument alone we are left at a standstill.  We would ultimately have to result to other arguments to determine the correct answer.  But again, this poses a problem for the Protestant since those other ‘arguments’, if correct, would put themselves on the same level as or higher level than the Bible in relation to authority.  Thus the Protestant is right back at the same problem he/she originally started at. 

The second way to get around it is to say something like: ‘Okay, your argument makes sense.  But what if the Canon of the Bible is simply an exception to the rule?  All other doctrines and teachings can be figured out from Scripture alone, but simply not this one, but that’s okay because this is merely an exception to the general rule of Sola Scriptura.’

The problem here is that there is no good reason to justify it as being an exception.  If there is an exception to the rule then there must be a reason why the exception is an exception.  This is what is known as an ad hoc fallacy, where one simply states an exception or a change in the argument without having a justifiable reason for the exception or change, and this would be done only to avoid the conclusion laid out by the opponent.  In this case, there is no reason given as to why the Canon of the Bible does not or should not be included under the rules of Sola Scriptura like every other Christian doctrine and teaching; thus the person who posits such a position is doing so not because there is a good reason to do so but merely to avoid the conundrum that was just provided in the above argument against Sola Scriptura.

The third way to get around the conclusion is to ‘bite the bullet’ and admit, ‘Yes, I must agree that there is no way to know for certain which books belong in the Bible by Scripture alone; but all the other arguments that are not as authoritative as Sacred Scripture (i.e. prophecy, early Christian testimony, etc) can still help in determining which books should be part of the Canon; they just cannot determine for certain if the books truly belong in the Bible or not.  In other words we have ‘a fallible list of infallible books’’. 

 

Such a position is not unheard of, as it is held by the Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul for instance.  This position must certainly be praised for its consistency.  However, the major and obvious flaw in such an argument is that if we have a fallible list of infallible books then what does that do to our faith?  For it is entirely possible on this reasoning alone that all the books in the Bible are not really inspired by God, or that there are multiple books of the Bible missing that should be included in the Canon.  In other words, if anything should be and needs to be infallible it is not just the books themselves but the list of books as well, for without an infallible list the idea of having infallible Scripture becomes a moot point.

I cannot see a way out for the Protestant here.  Using the Protestants’ own beliefs, it is logically impossible to determine for certain what the Canon of the Bible is, at least not without outside help.  And without that the whole idea of Sola Scriptura, and with it the Protestant faith itself, is rendered illogical and unlivable.

 

So all Protestants, I ask you to truly consider this in your hearts: if some source outside the Canon of Sacred Scripture, as the ‘sole infallible rule of faith,’ must rely on something other than itself to determine what makes up the Canon, then doesn’t it make sense to conclude that Sola Scriptura is not enough to determine the very Canon on which such a doctrine relies upon and is thus an incorrect way to view the Scriptures?

Please read Tom Brown’s article, linked above, for a much more intelligent and detailed discussion on the same topic, for it is where I gained the insight and inspiration of most of what I wrote here. 

The Principle of Double Effect

Hey everybody,

Thanks for being patient with me.  The new work position has been keeping me pretty busy, but very rewarding.  As a result though I have not been able to make a lot of posts here.  That may happen for a bit more time but I will try to do more in the near future to keep up with this blog.

I would like to use this post to explain The Principle of Double Effect.  This has been coming up on and off recently in discussions and articles, so I thought it is important to discuss.

So what exactly is the Principle of Double Effect?  It is essentially a principle that originated within Catholic thinking (it should be noted, however, that it is more than possible for people who do not adhere to the Catholic religion to believe in and argue for the Principle of Double Effect).  Aspects of the Principle are seen as far back in time as in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Although he did not specifically call it the “Principle of Double Effect,” he still implemented much of the essence of the Principle in his teachings (see his Summa Theologica II-II, Question 64, Article 7). 

Philosophical inquiries have always delved into questions concerning what is morally right and what is morally wrong.  As a result of such continuous inquiries philosophers have begun to ask, “What about situations that have both good effects and bad effects?”  In other words, how do we determine when an action that produces both good effects and bad effects is moral or immoral?  For example, what do we say about a situation where someone needs to kill someone to protect their own life (the good effect being the protection of one’s own life and the bad effect being the killing of a person)?

Enter the Principle of Double Effect.

Basically, the Principle of Double Effect is an attempt to describe how situations that have both good and bad effects can be deemed to be either moral or immoral.  Specifically, this Principle says that for a situation involving an action that has both good and bad effects to be deemed morally acceptable it must meet four criteria (as stated by the New Catholic Encyclopedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [which quotes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia]).  Those four criteria are:

1. the action must be morally good or, at the very least, morally neutral
2. the person doing the act cannot positively intend to achieve the bad effect, but merely permit it.  If the person could attain the good effect of the action without the bad effect then the person should do so. 
3. the good effect must be produced directly (causally, not necessarily in relation to time) from the act itself, not from the bad effect.
4. the good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

Let’s break this down to see if we can make some more sense of it.

1. The action must be morally good or, at the very least, morally neutral

This pretty much speaks for itself.  If the action itself is truly wrong then it should not be done regardless of its effects.  If I were to rob a bank, for instance, then it does not matter what effects, good or bad, come about as a result of that action because the very action itself is wrong.

2. The person doing the act cannot positively intend to achieve the bad effect, but merely permit it.  If the person could attain the good effect of the action without the bad effect then the person should do so

This is probably the most controversial part of the Principle, but upon closer inspection it is one that makes a lot of sense.  It’s saying that someone cannot do an action if they are intending the bad effect; they must only intend the good effect. 

Let us go back to the first example I gave above, about the person who needs to kill an unjust aggressor in order to protect their own life.  The Principle of Double Effect says that for the defender to, on a moral level, protect their own life from the unjust aggressor they cannot intend the death of the aggressor; they must only intend to protect their own life.  To intend the death of the other is the same as using the bad means (kill the aggressor) to justify a good ends (protecting your own life), which is always morally wrong.  However, if the defender only intends to protect their life and they just so happen to bring about the death of the aggressor (even though they don’t want to) then what they did is morally acceptable.  In such a situation the death of the aggressor was not wanted and only came about as an effect of the good intention that the defender had.

Now one might argue against this by saying, “Well what if the person knows that the bad effect will happen?  Doesn’t there knowledge of what is going to happen mean that they intend for it to happen?”  My response to this, though, is no, not necessarily.  Let’s go back to the self-defense analogy.  Let’s say that both the defender and the aggressor have a gun.  Furthermore, let’s say that the defender knows that if the aggressor raises his gun at him he will have to shoot him in the head in order to defend his own life.  Of course, the defender knows that if he shoots the aggressor in the face then he will probably die.  It does not follow, however, that the defender intends to kill the person.  Just because he knows that the aggressor will die if he shoots him in the face does not change the fact that, assuming he’s adhering to the Principle of Double Effect, he intends to kill him.  His only intention is to defend his own life, even if he knows that the only way for him to do so ends with the death of the aggressor.

Let’s use a simpler example to drive this point home.  Let’s say that I am a teacher and that I am grading a test that a student took.  The student, however, ended up failing her test.  I know that I have to talk to her about this, but then I recognize two effects that will come about from telling her.  A good effect is that I know her well enough to know that when I do tell her that she failed she will make sure to study for the next test.  A bad effect is that she will become very upset with herself.  So what should I do, knowing that these two effects will come about?  I don’t think anyone would deny that I should tell her and that I should intend the good effect without intending the bad effect.  It also seems pretty obvious that I can know what the bad effect is without intending it (I am not telling her in order to make her upset, after all, even though I know that this will happen).  Hence, in the same way one who defends themself, even if they foresee a bad effect of their defense being the death of the aggressor, does not necessarily intend the death of the aggressor.

3. The good effect must be produced directly (causally, not necessarily in relation to time) from the act itself, not from the bad effect

 

In essence, this condition states that one cannot intend the good effect if it comes about as a result of accomplishing the bad effect.  For example, If I wish to provide my family with food but have no money then I may think it a good idea to steal food.  The third condition says that it would be ridiculous for me to claim that I am intending the good effect and not intending the bad effect because the way in which I am achieving the effect of giving food to my family is by, first, achieving the effect of stealing.  Hence, I am intending, as a means to an end, to do the bad effect, even though the end is good in and of itself.

 

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect

 

This last condition brings up the idea of proportionality.  There must be a grave reason to allow the bad effect to happen.  For instance, let’s say that I am on a train that is heading toward five people who cannot escape and will die if hit by the train.  If I press a button, however, the train will divert onto another track and save the five people, but then it will head towards one person and end up killing him.  Now, assuming I met the first three criteria (which, as shown above, is possible), the fourth condition would say that I do have a grave reason for diverting the train.  However, let’s say that instead of five people on the train tracks it is five cats.  Would I then be right in diverting the train to save the cats, even though that would mean the death of the one person on the other track?  The fourth condition would say no, even if I meet the first three conditions, because saving the lives of five cats is not proportionate to the death of even one human being.

 

Hopefully this shows a brief but concise understanding of the Principle of Double Effect.  It should be noted, though, that many philosophers and theologians are still searching to better understand as well as explain the use and effectiveness of this Principle.  It is very much contested and questioned today particularly within bioethical circles, such as abortion.  As such, it is something that needs to continue to be discussed as we trudge through the waters of moral living.

Servant Leadership

Hey everyone, sorry I did not blog for a while.  I got real busy with work, and I will continue to be so for a while, so please be patient with me.  But I finally found some time to do one. 

First, I would just like to wish my girlfriend Maria a very Happy Birthday today.  I hope you enjoy it princess and I hope your day will be relaxing and blessed as you and all those who love you celebrate the joy of your being brought into this world.

Now, I would like to talk about something concerning my work.  I said in a previous post that I work at Quick Chek.  Well, recently I applied for a store leader position and last week I got the position.  Starting the day after this is written I will be in charge of a store. 

As anyone can guess, this carries with it a lot of responsibility.  Various tasks need to be done, rules need to be followed, etc.  But what is most important, for any store leader, or any leader for that matter, is to watch over their team members and those that are working for the leader.  It makes sense.  Even from a purely business perspective, I as a store leader will not be interacting with customers nearly as much as my employees are.  But I do interact often with my employees.  Not only that, but it is the team that really keeps the business/project/task running, not the store leader.  If it was just me in the store I would fail at running it because I cannot possibly do everything necessary to keep the store running by myself.  I need my team to be able to accomplish my goals.

I would also add, though, that it is by nature of being a leader that a leader should care for their employees and those that he/she is leading.  And this goes into any form of leadership whether it is in business or the community or one's family matters not in the sense that all leaders of all stripes need to care for those they are leading because of the very fact that they are/should be leaving them.  And again, this speaks true whether you are talking about a store leader, a political leader, a religious leader, a mom, a dad, etc. 

So how does one actually lead?  How does one successfully care for one's employees/loved ones and guide them to be the best that they can be in any and all ways that one as a leader has influence over?  Ultimately, it comes down to something that sounds paradoxical but in fact is not: you must serve in order to lead.

This is taken from the Gospel of Luke in the Bible.  After Jesus told the disciples at the Last Supper that one of the disciples will betray him, they started arguing with each other as to who was the best.  Jesus told them in response, "Let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.  For who is greater: the one seated at the table or the one who serves?  Is it not the one seated at table?  I am among you as the one who serves" (Luke 22: 26-27).  Jesus is the Son of God, and thus is clearly leading his disciples, yet he does so by serving them.  He lets his disciples, and ultimately all leaders know, that if you want to lead a group of people, you need to serve them, sacrifice yourself for them and for their sake.

This, however, is not based solely on a scripture verse.  This is a type of leadership philosophy known as Servant-Leadership.  You can get a good idea behind the philosophy here.  But basically, rather than the typical idea of leadership which is attaining power and control, Servant-Leadership is about giving the power you have, in a sense, to your team, developing them and helping them to grow.

It is this type of philosophy that I try, and will continue to try, to live out every day at work and in my life.  I fail a lot, but I succeed at times as well.  I need to keep getting better, and I know I will.

To serve my team is not to relinquish any power that I have as a leader, just like Jesus did not relinquish his Godly power by serving his disciples and the rest of the human race.  On the contrary, by serving your team and those you are leading you are helping them to become better employees and better people.  And this is done through numerous ways.  By teaching them at every opportunity you can, delegating in order to give them responsibilities they wouldn't normally have and thus empowering them, rewarding for success, correcting for mistakes/failures, encouraging them to step out of their comfort zone, and most of all support your team members both as a team and as individuals in every aspect of their job by actually making yourself available to them; it is by these methods and others that one can serve their team, for to serve is to sacrifice.

James Hunter, author of the book The Servant, a fictional story about a man going to a leadership retreat to learn about Servant-Leadership, writes in his Forward for the book that most people would agree in theory that Servant-Leadership is pretty great and should be followed.  Yet he makes the observation as well that it is so rarely practiced.  Hunter suspects that the reason for this is because it takes time to fully apply and acclimate to a Servant-Leadership style, and many leaders simply do not want to put in the time.  It is much simpler and easier in the short run to micromanage. 

Yet if you truly want to be a great leader then micromanaging is not the way to go.  If you truly want your business, your organization, your anything to succeed and to thrive then you need the people you are leading to succeed in every facet of their professional, and even personal, lives.  And let me make clear, succeeding does not mean never making mistakes; nobody is capable of that kind of standard.  But to succeed is to do your best, get results, and when you don't or when you make mistakes to learn what you can do to be better AND THEN DO IT.

Servant-Leadership is by its very nature time-consuming; it does not happen over night.  And this is often perceived as a weakness within the philosophy.  But anybody who has experienced positive and lasting change in their lives knows that such rarely happens quickly.  It takes time to get into a certain habit, or to break out of one, or to become better in a particular field of work or study or lifestyle.  Yet we all recognize that such time spent will be worth it.

So I hope and I pray that I and other leaders will learn to be patient of themselves and others as we all strive to be better leaders in our jobs, in our homes, and in our lives.  Look to the Lord Jesus Christ, the ultimate leader as well as the ultimate servant, who sacrificed everything for the sake of humanity, as an example of true leadership.  And his motivation for doing so?  Love. 

May all leaders love those that they are leading and care for their growth and their very selves. 

The Nature of Debates

I love debates, any kind of debates to be honest.  I have a special place in my heart, though, for religious debates.  And a part of this love is certainly, and oftentimes sadly, for entertainment purposes; that is what several years of mixed martial arts and a competitive spirit will get you: a love for contest.

However, love of competition and contest for the sake of competition and contest, particularly in relation to debates, can be unhealthy and dangerous.  Debates, after all, are usually focused on a point of disagreement in relation to a spiritual, social, political, or otherwise important topic of discussion that affects the beliefs and lives of many people.  Thus, watching and listening to debates should, to me, be about more then just enjoying friendly differences of opinion.

I have, however, also heard it said that debates are useful for educational purposes; if you hold a particular view on a certain issue than you can learn a lot about the opposing viewpoint by listening to someone who holds that opposing viewpoint.  And if you learn about an opponent's reasons for holding the view they hold, then you can learn and research how to respond to their arguments, thus strengthening your belief in your position while learning more about the issue itself.  And what better place to educate yourself and learn how to defend your beliefs then by seeing a debate on this very issue?

I must caution, however, that while it is certainly true that debates are a terrific educational tool for the above-mentioned reason and it is a truly acceptable and good reason for watching debates, the reason for learning about an opposing viewpoint of your own should never be solely or primarily to learn how to combat said opposition; while it can play a part in your motivation, it should not be the dominant excuse you use.  I offer a better reason for you to listen to debates, or anybody with an opposing viewpoint for that matter, and that is in order to follow and live by what is true, regardless of where it leads.  This is another way of saying: be open to the possibility that you are wrong and be willing to change your views if you discover yourself to be on the wrong side of the controversy.  And this is ultimately due to the very nature of debates themselves being a pursuit of the truth.  These positions affect the way we live our lives in most circumstances.  Thus, it would seem to be of utmost importance for us to make sure that we are on the right side of things; and should we find ourselves to be on the wrong side of an issue (which we all are concerning one topic or another) then it is our duty, as a result of our pursuit of truth, to reflect on it and change what we believe and why we believe it.

This may seem completely logical to some, even elementary.  But I would just mention that a) it is not so easy for everyone to grasp, and b) even if you believe what I say, that does not make it easy to live out.  God knows I struggle with living out an open mind and heart every single day in one way or another, despite knowing that I should.

We must, therefore, strive to recognize that we may very well be wrong about what we believe, and change our beliefs and actions accordingly.

As an example: lately I have been very interested in the difference between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of authority: in other words, what in the Christian faith is supposed to lead us in our beliefs and teachings?  In particular I have been watching debates and reading up on Sola Scriptura, the Protestant belief that The Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith for the Christian; all other authorities, while important, are completely and utterly subject to the Scriptures.  Catholics, such as myself, disagree, believing that it is the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Magisterium that are the infallible pillars of faith for the Christian. 

Now if I, as a Catholic, am wrong about my belief and the Protestant belief of Sola Scriptura is correct, then I would be doing myself a big disservice, at the very least, by not at least being open to changing my mind and heart about the issue, for I will not really come to the truth without doing so.  Thus I should be willing to abandon my Catholic faith and embrace the Protestant belief of Sola Scriptura should there be truly sufficient and convincing reasons to do so.

The same, however, can and should be said of the Protestant, as well as everybody who holds a position on a particular controversy.  Any debate, whether it be a formal debate or a disagreement with a friend, is not just a chance for us to learn, but a chance for us to come to and follow what is true and to leave behind what is false. 

I once heard a pro-life speaker say that each and every one of us believes false things, we just may not realize at this very moment that they are false.  Regardless of what differences we have amongst each other, we in one way or another agree on the necessity to believe the truth.  That is what all of our heartfelt beliefs are derived from.

And yet each and every one of us still experiences moments when we are unwilling to change our beliefs, even when the belief is shown to be untenable. 

As a result, it is a continuous work-in-progress for us to remain in this mindset of openness to the truth, which is ironic because we all inherently desire the truth; it is just always simpler to remain where we are then to change.  But change we must if we are to discard all falsehood and come to know all truth.  And we all have the responsibility to do just that, each and every one of us.

And so as a start to that, here is one of the Sola Scriptura debates that I watched recently.  Enjoy, learn, and be open-minded.



St. Stephen's Basilica

Besides Cave Church, which I talked about in my previous blog, Maria and I also visited St. Stephen's Basilica.  We didn't plan on visiting it, at least not on the day and time that we did; we just happened to come across it as we were on our way back home after a long day of terrific site-seeing.

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, it is amazingly massive.  All of that open pavement laying below it?  Underneath that is the large parking garage needed to be able to fit all of the congregants who attend Mass there.  It is also significantly larger than the buildings that surround it.  Just the sheer size of it speaks to the glory of God.  But as you can see, it is also beautifully made, with wonderful artwork and sculptures, all in some way praising God and lifting Him up, pointing to His unlimited greatness.

 





 

As we get closer, we are able to see a statue of St. Stephen actually looking down over the front of the entrance, inviting them in.

 

 

St. Stephen is actually one of the few King-Saints in existence (a King (of Hungary) who was canonized into Sainthood).  He defended, protected, and upheld the Catholic faith for an entire country!!!  He spread the gospel message throughout his citizens and lived a life of holiness in his kingship.

 

After seeing the outside we stepped inside and marveled at it all; so much breathtaking artwork, so much symbolism, and all for the glory and praise and worship of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

I could go on and on with the pictures (and Maria took much better pictures then I did (can you spot the one photo I put up that she took?)) but no pictures can fully capture the awe of this Basilica.  We even decided to come back here to watch/listen to a concert with orchestra-level music. 

 

Needless to say, we truly felt the presence of God in so many ways here, as well as in Budapest in general.  There were so many other places that we visited and enjoyed, but the only way you will truly appreciate it is if you go yourself.  So if you can, do it.  You won't regret it.



Cave Church

As I said in my last post I recently visited my girlfriend Maria in Poland.  We had a wonderful time together and we visited many places and sites.  One place we visited was Budapest, Hungary.  We stayed there for a few days, and some of the numerous things we have seen have been the Churches there.

One of these Churches is called Cave Church.  And yes, it is EXACTLY what it sounds like.

 

 

 

 

 

This Church was literally built inside of a cave!!  And it looks awesome.

 

Right on the inside is a little tourist shop filled with many beautifully hand-made religious objects.

 

 

 

 

And then we were able to proceed through the rest of the Church.  We came across a confessional built right into the cave walls,

 

 

 

 



awesome-looking statues, including one of St. Paul, since it is the Pauline Order in Hungary who has the Church,

 

 

 

 

 

and wonderful wood carvings, confessional, and an alter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are numerous other pictures I took, which are up on my facebook.  Needless to say, this was worth seeing. 

 

The amount of history behind this Church is incredible.  It was originally built during the 1920s.  The cave itself was used by various Catholic priests and hermits as a place for preaching and healing, long before the Church itself was even built.  It was decided that the Church should be made in order bring the Hungarian people back to their Patron Saint, the Virgin Mary.  Hence, the official name the Church was given was the Cave Church of Our Lady.

 

When building the Church they ended up not being able to set it up according to their original measurements because other tunnels kept opening up when they would commence drilling.  Many people during this time thought that this was the work of God. 

 

The Church was used during WWII, but after the communist takeover occurred the Church was blocked off, and many monastic orders in Hungary, including the Pauline Order, were suppressed.  However, when Communism fell in 1989 the Church was able to be opened again and given back the Pauline Order.

 

The tour of the Church was a truly breathtaking experience.  Maria and I really enjoyed it and learned how God really worked through so many people and so many situations to make this Church come into existence.





Trip to Poland

Hey everyone,

Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while.  But I have been on vacation in Poland.  I have been enjoying a wonderful time off of work and in a faraway place. 

But that really was not the highlight of my trip.  The real reason for going was to visit Maria.

 

 

 

She is this wonderful and amazing woman that I met about a year and a half ago.  Well, I guess I shouldn't say 'met' because we did not 'physically' meet.  She lives in Poland and I live in New Jersey.  So, we first 'met' on a pro-life website (sadly said website is no longer running).  We were both bloggers and became fans of each others' posts.  So we got to know each other and became fast friends because of that.  We read and enjoyed (and even critiqued) each others blog posts about the pro-life movement pretty regularly.

 

Eventually, though, we both started to become attracted to each other.  So much so, in fact, that we realized that we both wanted to be more than just friends.  Obviously, however, there was a little issue we had called distance.  We obviously couldn't exactly see each other face-to-face anytime we felt like it...or could we?

 

After skyping for a bit we worked out a date and a time for Maria to come to the United States.  January of 2013 worked out well.  She would be coming right in time for my birthday and it was during her school break. 

 

This was planned a few months before she would actually arrive (and this was her first visit to the United States,  by the way).  We got to know each other more and more during that time, what our likes and dislikes were, how important our faith was to ourselves, what we wanted and expected from our future, and more.  And we only grew closer as a result.

 

When the time finally came for her to come here, my dad and I picked her up from JFK airport.  She looked beautiful to me, even though she didn't think so (it was understandable; she was just getting done with a 10 hour flight, and was stuck in security for several hours after that).  At long last we finally got to see each other.  We went home holding hands, and we even had our first kiss that very same night.  And it was this night that we decided to officially declare ourselves to be going out.

 

A lot has happened between then and now.  We visited many places, both in the United States and in Poland (I went to Poland the upcoming summer).  We spent a lot of time together, but most of all we got closer to one another.  Most of all, our faith in God has truly helped us to realize the wonderful fruits that are in our relationship.  Her faith truly strengthens mine every day in one way or another, and she truly cares about my salvation.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is woman beyond all imagination and dreaming.

 

So the last couple of weeks I spent in Poland (and a few days in Hungary) with this amazing woman.  We celebrated many things, one of which was our one year anniversary.  Remembering all the amazing times we have had over the past year, as well as how much closer in faith towards God and love towards each other, has helped me to realize just how lucky and blessed I am to have Maria in my life.

 

 



 

Happy Anniversary sweetie.  We really have bonded well over the past year in ways that are so unbelievable.  You truly bring me closer to God in ways that no one else has, and you genuinely care for me and love me, as I you.  I thank God every day for you being in my life.  Thank you Maria for everything. 

Controversial? (Part 1)

So the past number of posts have been a bit heavy (and there will be more of that type of stuff to come), so I thought I would lighten it up a bit by introducing a new series in the blog called 'Controversial?'. 

Basically, every now and then I will post something, either a video or an article, and just ask for your opinion: do you think this is controversial?  What do you think about what is being portrayed?  What would you have done/said differently if you could/wanted to? 

So for today's first posting of this series, it will be a Coca Cola commercial that, according to the youtube channel that it is on, was banned in various places from airing. 

So what do you think?  Do you like it?  Do you hate it?  Anything about it you would change? Whatever you think about this commercial, let's talk about it and get our opinions out there.

The Mass in Scripture (Part 5 (Finale))

(After everyone has been given the chance to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, the Priest and Deacon purify (a certain way of cleaning) what was used to hold the Body and Blood of Christ.)

Priest (quietly while purifying): What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we possess in purity of heart, that what has been given to us in time may be our healing for eternity.

[So turn from youthful desires and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord with purity of heart. (2Timothy 2: 22)]

(The Priest and Deacon then sit down.  The congregation usually returns to a sitting position.  A silence often follows before the Priest stands up, beckoning everyone else to stand.)

Priest: Let us pray.  (The Priest then says a prayer.)

Congregation (after Priest's prayer): Amen.

(The Priest then says, if necessary, any announcements from the Church.)

Priest (after announcements): The Lord be with you.

Congregation: And with your spirit.

Priest (while he and everyone else does the Sign of the Cross): May almighty God bless you, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Congregation: Amen.

Priest/Deacon: Go forth, the Mass is ended.

                                                                         or

Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord.

                                                                        or

Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.

                                                                        or

Go in peace.

[But he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7: 50)

The jailer reported the(se) words to Paul, "The magistrates have sent orders that you be released.  Now, then, come out and go in peace." (Acts 16: 36)

He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 8: 48)]

(The Priest, Deacon, Lector, and Alter servers then step off of the alter, bow towards it, and proceed out of the church.  This marks the conclusion of the Mass.)



That is the end of the Catholic Mass, and the end of this series.  I hope this was as enjoyable for you as it was for me.  As it turns out I ended up finishing this while on vacation in Poland (visiting my girlfriend since she lives here :) ).  So it was good to end this in a stress-free environment.

If you have any questions, problems, or comments about anything that I mention/bring up at anytime throughout this series, or about anything else that crosses your mind, then please let me know and I will do my best to address it.

The Mass and Scripture (Part 4)

Here is part 1, 2, and 3.

(The Priest, Deacon, and Alter servers prepare the table for the Eucharist.  While this is happening tithes, or monetary donations to the church, are given and collected.  Then the 'gifts', the bread and wine to  be used in the Celebration, are brought up by a couple of people from the Congregation to the Priest.  The rest of the alter is prepared, with various prayers being recited by the Priest.  Then when the preparation is complete, the Priest invites everyone to stand.)

Priest: Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

[and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Peter 2: 5)]

Congregation: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and the glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy church.

(The Priest says a prayer over the Offerings (bread and wine), to which the congregation replies, "Amen.")

(The Eucharistic Prayer begins after this point.  It is a prayer meant to praise and give glory to God through Jesus' actual body and blood.  Catholics believe that during a particular point of the Mass the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.  Thus, this Eucharistic Prayer is meant to convey our praise to God through the Celebration of his bodily Presence.  It is also a time for us to participate with Christ in his Sacrifice for us, since, as was addressed in the first part of this series, the Mass and the Eucharist in particular are the sacrifice that Christ made for the sake of our salvation.  Thus, by God's grace, we are able to participate with Christ in his very sacrifice for us.)

Priest: The Lord be with you.
Congregation: And with your Spirit.
Priest: Lift up your hearts.
Congregation: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.
Congregation: It is right and just.

[...giving thanks always and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father. (Ephesians 5: 20)

We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you... (Colossians 1: 3)

We give thanks to you, Lord God almighty, who are and who were. (Revelation 11: 17)

To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21: 3)]

Priest: It is  truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things...

[In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. (John 1: 1, 14)]

Priest: ...whom you sent as Savior and Redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. 

[From this mans' descendants God, according to his promise, has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus. (Acts 13: 23)

For, in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you. (2Peter 1: 11)

...to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.  (Titus 1: 3)]

Priest: Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection.

[...but now made manifest through the appearance of our savior Christ Jesus, who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel... (2Timothy 1: 10)]

...but we do see Jesus "crowned with glory and honor" because he suffered death, he who "for a little while" was made "lower than the angels," that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2: 9)

But now Christ has been raised from the dead... (1Corinthians 15: 20)]

Priest: And so with the Angels and all the Saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim:

[...that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15: 5)

And when they heard it, they raised their voices to God with one accord... (Acts 4: 24)]

All: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts.  Heaven and Earth are full of your glory.

[David answered him: "You come against me with sword and spear and scimitar, but I come against you in the name of the LORD of hosts..." (1Samuel 17: 45)

Covered are the heavens with his glory, and with his praise the earth is filled. (Habakkuk 3: 3)

Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts!" they cried one to the other.  "All the earth is filled with his glory!" (Isaiah 6: 3)]

All: ...Hosanna in the Highest.  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.  Hosanna in the Highest.

"[Hosanna to the son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest." (Matthew 21: 9)

Those preceding him as well as those following kept crying out: "Hosanna!  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!  Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is to come!  Hosanna in the highest!" (Mark 11: 9-10)

...they took palm branches and went out to meet him, and cried out: "Hosanna!  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, (even) the king of Israel." (John 12: 13)]

Priest: You are indeed holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness.

[Therefore, O holy One, Lord of all holiness... (2Maccabees 14: 36)]

Priest: Make holy, therefore, these gifts [the bread and wine], we pray, by sending down your spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.  At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, gave it to his disciples, saying: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT, FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. (Priest holds up the bread.  It is at this point that the bread literally becomes the Body of Christ.  The Priest puts down the Eucharist and kneels.  He then stands back up)

[...that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you.  Do this in remembrance of me." (1Corinthians 11: 23-24)

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."  (Luke 22: 19)

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." (Mark 14: 22)

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26: 26)]

Priest: In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.  DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.  (Priest holds up the Chalice with the wine.  It is at this point that the wine literally becomes the Blood of Christ.  The priest puts down the Chalice and kneels.  He then stands back up)

[In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1Corinthians 11: 25)

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." (Luke 22: 19)

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.  He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." (Mark 14: 22)

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26: 27-28)]

Priest: The mystery of faith.
Congregation: We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.

[For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1Corinthians 11: 26)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in his great mercy gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of  Jesus Christ from the dead. (1Peter 1: 3)]

                                                or

Congregation: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.

[For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1Corinthians 11: 26)]

                                                or

Congregation: Save us, Savior of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.

[Moreover, we have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as savior of the world. (1John 4: 14)

"We o longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world." (John 4: 42)

For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5: 1)]

Priest: Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.

["My sons, be not negligent any longer, for it is you whom the LORD has chosen to stand before him, to minister to him, to be his ministers and to offer incense." (2Chronicles 29: 11)

As though it were holocausts of rams and bullocks, or thousands of fat lambs, so let our sacrifice be in your presence today as we follow you unreservedly (Daniel 3: 40)]

Priest: Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.

[The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?  The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?  Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. (1Corinthians 10: 16-17)]

Priest: Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with ___________ our Pope and ____________ our Bishop and all the clergy.

Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face.

[(We do not want you to be unaware, brothers, about those who have fallen asleep, so that you may not grieve like the rest, who have no hope.  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so too will God, through Jesus, bring with him those who have fallen asleep. (1Thessalonians 4: 13)

Many say, "May we see better times!  LORD, show us the light of your face!"...In peace I shall both lie down and sleep, for you alone, LORD, make me secure. (Psalm 4: 7, 9)

It was your right hand, your own arm, the light of your face for you favored them. (Psalm 44: 4)]

Priest: Have mercy on us, we pray, that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God...

["And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1: 43)]

Priest: ...with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.

[...that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through  the gospel. (Ephesians 3: 6)

And this is the promise he made us: eternal life. (1John 2: 25)]

(The Priest takes the Body and Blood and holds them up)

Priest: Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever.

Congregation: Amen.

[May he carry out in you what is pleasing  to him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever (and ever).  Amen.  (Hebrews 13: 21)]

(The congregation stands up)

Priest: At the Savior's command and formed by divine teaching, we dare to say:
All: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

["This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.  Give us today our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us from to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one." (Matthew 6: 9-13)]

Priest: Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

[He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness.  By his wounds you have been healed. (1Peter 2: 24)

...as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. (Titus 2: 12)]

Congregation: For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

[Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever... (Hebrews 1: 8)

Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these: He leads out their army and numbers them, calling them all by name.  By his great might and the strength of his power not one of them is missing! (Isaiah 40: 26)]

Priest: Lord Jesus Christ, who said to the Apostles: Peace I leave you, my peace I give to you;

[Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. (John 14: 27)]

Priest: Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and graciously grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will.  Who live and reign for ever and ever.

Congregation: Amen.

Priest: The peace of the Lord be with you always.

Congregation: And with your spirit.

Priest/Deacon: Let us over each other the sign of peace.

(All turn towards those around them and shake hands with one another, saying): Peace be with you.

[...Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." (John 20: 19)

Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." (John 20: 26)]

Priest (quietly while breaking the Eucharist and putting a piece of it into the Chalice): May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

[Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day." (John 6: 53-54)]

(At the same time...)

Congregation: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.  (The congregation then kneels)

[The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." (John 1: 29)

Hear, O LORD, for you are a God of mercy; and have mercy on us, who have sinned against you... (Baruch 3: 2)

So now if you implore God for mercy on us... (Malachi 1: 9)]

Priest (says quietly): Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who, by the will of the Father and the work of the Holy Spirit, through your Death gave life to the world, free me by this, your most holy Body and Blood, from all my sins and from every evil; keep me always faithful to your commandments, and never let me be parted from you.

[Now someone approached him and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?"  He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good?  There is only One who is good.  If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19: 16)]

                                                                         or

May the receiving of your Body and Blood, Lord Jesus Christ, not bring me to judgment and condemnation, but through your loving mercy be for me protection in mind and body and a healing remedy.

[A wicked messenger brings on disaster, but a trustworthy envoy is a healing remedy. (Proverbs 13: 16)]

(The priest kneels down briefly, and then raises the Body and Blood of Jesus and says aloud:) Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world.  Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

[Then the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb." Revelation 19: 9)]

Congregation: Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

[He [Jesus] said to him, "I will come and cure him [your servant]."  The centurion said in reply, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed." (Matthew 8: 7-8)

And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof.  Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed. (Luke 7: 6-7)]

Priest (says quietly): May the Body of Christ keep me safe for eternal life.  (He then eats the Body of Christ.  Then he says quietly) May the Blood of Christ keep me safe for eternal life. (He then drinks the Blood of Christ.  Afterwards, the Priest as well as others (the Deacon and/or Eucharistic Ministers) receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and then receive a portion of it to help distribute to the rest of the congregation.  It is at this point that everyone in the congregation, who so chooses to, receives the Body and/or Blood of Jesus Christ.)