Skip to main content
Well-struck, sir. I think this grudging tone may ease a bit, but I certainly understand it. I didn't want to be Catholic. I liked being Reformed. I liked the idea of being a pastor. I loved preaching. Preaching is where faith and love meet people, and I like a lot of all three.

I should say Protestant preaching. I don't know who or what is training these priests and deacons, but something is wrong. I've heard really good homilies--a few. And thankfully, the fullness of faith reflected in the liturgy has kept me from dissecting every single one. But I do know one thing: your ability to move someone to do or believe something is directly proportionate to how much you yourself do and believe. That is, holiness is the engine of good preaching. And holiness comes by prayer and repentance. Or, if you happen to like a more Catholic turn of phrase, conversion. I'm not here to say that Catholic preaching should be like Protestant preaching, especially not in doctrinal content. But we know as Catholics that Holy Mother Church gives us all we could ever want in terms of opportunities for communion with God. Preach from that.

It seems to this opinionated wind-bag that a lot of time gets wasted by eager young men eager to share the doctrine of God travelling down side-streets that have nothing to do with the destination, as it were. Let me be frank: the thing I spent the least amount of time on was precise crafting of my actual words. I spent the most time in prayer and reading. You've got to get out of your own way. It's not about you. Easy to say, I know.

My first lesson in homiletics would go like this: "OK, gentlemen. Everyone in your audience is going to die within the hour. Half of them are in mortal sin right now. A quarter just come here out of habit, and the other quarter are faithful, but needing encouragement. You each have exactly 15 minutes to change the world. Now preach."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un