Advert
Print
The Times Logo
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 by

Edward P. Tagliaferro

I do believe in God, but…

If I were presenting a talk show and a member of the audience begins to express an opinion on a known scientific or geographical fact, I would certainly stop him/her from continuing further. I would not accept someone saying “They say that the world is round but my opinion is that it is flat” or “We were taught that two and two are four but my opinion…”

Similarly, I would also interrupt anyone who starts saying “I do believe in God, but…” because the proclamation “I believe” means I accept all the truths about God revealed to us, even though there may be some of these truths that I cannot understand fully (mysteries).

“… in God” means the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the Almighty; Creator of heaven and earth; God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Three Persons in one God; God the Father revealed to us through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures; the Son, Jesus Christ, who came on earth to redeem and save us; the same son who was born of the Virgin Mary, died for us on the cross and rose again from the dead; the Holy Spirit, who fills people with His seven gifts and turns weak, illiterate and humble men into courageous apostles full of divine wisdom.

Our Lord Jesus Christ ordered the members of His Church to “go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe and are baptised will be saved (heaven); those who do not believe will be condemned (hell). The sins of those you forgive on this earth will be forgiven in heaven; the sins of those you do not forgive on this earth will not be forgiven in heaven”.

So the statement “I believe” includes the acceptance of Christ’s teachings and of the Catholic Church as the only authority to interpret these teachings.

One day, when Jesus Christ was preaching, He said: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Many disciples could not take this teaching and left Him. So Jesus turned to his apostles and said: “Do you also want to go?” And Peter replied: “To whom do you want us to go, Lord? You have the words of eternal life”. Although the apostles could not understand what this statement meant, they had the patience to wait for the Last Supper, where Jesus Christ showed them the manner in which He was to become our spiritual sustenance and eternal salvation.

There is no compromise in Christ’s teachings. The same applies when Peter tried to interfere with the will of the eternal Father that Christ had to suffer and die on the cross. Here, Christ chides Peter for letting sentiment cloud his judgement. Peter is called Satan for tempting Jesus to stay away from Jerusalem and the crucifixion.

In the same way, there cannot be any compromise with any of the articles in the Creed which we pronounce every Sunday during Holy Mass.

So, if anyone says to me: “I believe in God but not in the Catholic Church or the virginity of Our Lady or Jesus Christ, etc,” I will reply: “You may be sincere in your statement but I am afraid you are wrong. You either believe in a god other than the one outlined above or else you do not understand what the word ‘believe’ fully entails. If you wish to remain a committed Christian, you are invited to rediscover the richness of the Christian faith, some aspects of which you might have forgotten. If you truly believe in God, then you have to believe in heaven, hell, the Catholic Church, the virginity of Our Lady, Holy Communion, confession to a priest and, in short, all the other articles of the Creed.”

“I believe” is a package. One cannot pick and choose at random from this package (what some are now referring to as the supermarket syndrome), accepting what I like and discarding what does not tickle my fancy. One either accepts the whole package or none at all.

“But am I not supposed to follow my conscience,” some might rightly ask. Rather than expressing my ideas I would like to offer those of an expert in the field – Richard M. Gula – who, in his book Moral Discernment, states among other things:

“If we are going to grow in our loving relationship with God and neighbour then we need to discern what is truly loving. Conscience is our capacity for making such discernment.”

We must not confuse conscience with the superego. The superego is like a recording in our heads reminding us of all that we should do in the process of growing up under the influence of authority figures. It commands us to act for the sake of gaining approval or out of fear of losing love. The wants of conscience look to personalised and internalised values or acquired virtues.

Conscience responds to an invitation of love and is oriented towards the future – “the person one ought to become”. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself but which holds him to obedience. Man has in his heart a law written by God. In fact, conscience is the place where God speaks to us.

However, the obligation to follow conscience presupposes that we have properly formed our conscience. This is a lifelong task and an ongoing process of conversion. We are often blinded by sin to recognise moral truth all by ourselves. So we have to consult the established sources of wisdom. For a Catholic, these sources include our own experience and those of others around us; the testimony of the sacred scriptures and our creeds; the moral instruction of the teaching office (magisterium) of the Pope and the bishops: this office carries a weight of truth for Catholics that no other teacher can rightfully claim; and the informed judgement of theologians who are in communion with the Church’s magisterium.

What we do ultimately shapes our character.

The author is a qualified spiritual guide with the Centre for Ignatian Spirituality, Mount St Joseph, Mosta.

Print
Advert

32 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Mr K.M Edwards

May 24th 2011, 23:58

@ Mr Renald Williams

Oh dear, you really do need some new reading glasses, my friend.

You managed to twist canonized Catholic saints and Doctors of the Church, St Augustine no less, as well as ... the very Catholic Catechism itself into denying Catholic dogma. Wow! I don't think the Catholic Church would survive denying its own doctrine in its own Catechism.

To take you to task on just one of your comments that paragraph 1447 of the Catholic Catechism claims that in the first centuries confession was "directly to God and not to the priest", let us quote that paragraph for you:

"1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this "order of penitents" (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the "private" practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest..."

Okay, so, in the seventh century the Church *RELAXED* its strict discipline of forcing sinners into public penance BEFORE they went to confession (reconciliation) towards the end of their lives, to allow penitents more PRIVACY and more FREQUENT opportunities of confession.

Where you miss the point friend is that the sacrament of reconciliation/confession which involved absolution from a priest was there from day one. Christ gave his apostles that power when He declared "Those who sins you forgive, they are forgiven, those whose sins you do not forgive, they are not forgiven" John 20:23.

The rest of your rant falls apart on your lack of comprehension.

You are clearly a protestant reading what you want into the writings of the Church Fathers, and even of the Catholic Catechism itself. I was there, protestantism and all. The fact is that you need to read the Catholic Catechism as it is intended to be read, and likewise for the Fathers. Juxtaposing your protestant beliefs into those writings is simply not honest.

Ms C. Dimech

May 24th 2011, 15:44

let us not forget the erroneous interpretations of the word by the Roman Catholic Church itself, or should we believe that the Crusades, the Inquisition, l'interdett to name a few where all justifiable and right????

Patrick Mulholland

May 24th 2011, 21:10

"Is it not a scientific fact that the world evolved and was not made by God?" - No, it's called a theory that has never been and cannot be proven. The evidence is interpreted in a different way.
"Is it not a scientific fact that we as a species evolved from fish?" - Again no, it's a theory.
"How does that stand in the 'God made the earth in 7 days and 7 nights?" - I'd rather trust in God who's word holds on forever than man's who changes his mind every minute!
Good scientists will admit that the theory of evolution has many errors and cannot stand.

Victor Rodenas

May 24th 2011, 15:04

It is a fact that Christians could not even read the Bible some years ago.It was only in the last few decades that the Bible was translated in Maltese.The man who did the translation was Mons. Saydon and he did not have any help from the Church.It took him more than 20 yrs. to translate from the Aramaic and Greek and he had to pay for all the expences from his own pockets.Shame. They (Curia) beleive in God but they did not want the translation of the Bible in Maltese at a time when money was pouring in their coffers in huge amounts.Any apologists ?

Jason Borg

May 24th 2011, 21:23

Mr. Rodenas - now that the Bible is available in Maltese, how many times do you read from this book? Because it would be a shame if you keep digging in the past and ignore the opportunities of the present.

Mr Joseph Brincat

May 24th 2011, 13:19

I strongly believe in the Universal Roman Catholic church as instituted by Jesus Christ our Saviour.

BUT I do not believe in the local church which has caused so much pain to many families (including mine) in the 60's and which this divorce referendum has shown that it is still as intolerance as it was then (and this despite the successive apologies by the bishops which came after Gonzi).

Besides, look are our churches cast in gold and silver. Do they symbolise what Jesus preached?

(jb)

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Dear Dom – banal and insolent

  2. Dear Dom – dear, dear, dear!

  3. Labour – Mintoff’s prime victim

  4. True feminism is pro-life

  5. Motives behind my daughter’s murder

  6. Myth of ‘portable pillow’ posterior

  7. Mintoff’s ups and downs

  8. No laptops please, we’re students

  9. A new Nationalist leader

In Discussion

  1. Dear Dom – banal and insolent

  2. True feminism is pro-life

  3. Dear Dom – dear, dear, dear!

  4. Political ghosts of the past

  5. Labour – Mintoff’s prime victim

  6. Abortion and human rights

  7. Mintoff’s ups and downs

  8. The banalisation of democracy

  9. We know what Mintoff did

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 02-06-2012 - This article is for personal use only, and should not be distributed