Skip to main content

Little Things Mean A Lot

I suppose it's a good thing to be on the fence about needing the Sacrament of Reconciliation, if you are a well-formed Catholic with a strong conscience. It means that you are not the sort of person who lives the kind of life that the fear of judgment is inordinately terrifying. On the other hand, the saints seem preoccupied with their own sinfulness. That makes sense; if the light of Christ always shines, it'll see a lot of dust and dirt. In short, I went.

Maybe one gets a little proud on the road to Heaven, because I didn't want to go. I always think there might be a guy who hasn't been in 40 years, and I'm holding up the show. On the other hand, if I cared enough to speak these faults--even, blessedly, not mortal to my soul--God the Holy Spirit thinks these are more serious than I do.

And I felt more sorry about them in the sharing than I did when I was debating whether to go. I have to believe that was a work of grace. God never works shame in our hearts, but he does bring about renunciation. That's a key difference. Shame is the wounded pride of failing ourselves or others; repentance is the firm determination to walk with God, leaving sins behind. We might sin much in a repeated way; it doesn't mean we were not sorry, or that we don't intend to do better. It might mean there is a deep need or desire that we are trying to fill with something else. That something can look pretty good, even many times. We've got to keep our wits about us, so we aren't sucked down further.

He loves us. [Isn't it weird how you rip CCM/P&W all the time, and still link to their songs?--ed.] Yes, it is. However, if you were going to get a completely-unfitting-for-Mass praise chorus stuck in your head, on the condition that you'd actually believe it down to the core of your being, you could do way worse than this one. I want to believe this; if I did, I'm sure I'd live differently.

Comments

It is a good one -- we've started using it in LU's chapel recently. Praise and worship songs have gotten better in recent years, I think.

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