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.