Blessed are those who have not seen

After thinking more about last Sunday's Gospel readings, I've been struck by John 20:29.

Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

I've always considered myself one of the "blessed" Jesus speaks of, because I have not seen him, and yet I believe.

But what if I did see Jesus, would my faith be stronger? I hope that it would, but I fear the truthful answer to that question. As a Catholic, I get to see Jesus every week (every day in fact, if I were faithful enough) in the Eucharist. Even though he doesn't look like he did when Thomas saw him, Jesus is there, Body. Blood, Soul, and Divinty, as real as he was when he spoke the words quoted above. So in a very concrete sense, I, and all Catholics, have seen Jesus. Is my faith as strong as it should be? I don't think so.

Thankfully, "For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

Honest Thomas

As I've been reflecting on last Sunday's Gospel reading, I can't help but ask myself if the apostle Thomas has been unfairly portrayed for the last, oh, two thousand years. As a child, I got to know him as doubting Thomas. I don't know how many times I was told "Don't be a doubting Thomas." My confirmation name is Thomas, after St. Thomas Aquinas. I can remember people asking me, "You're confirmation saint isn't doubting Thomas, is it?" Yes, I think Thomas has gotten a bad wrap. As Peter Kreeft would say, let's look at the data.

We have four gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection. In the Gospel of Matthew, when the women saw the empty tomb, they were told by an angel to go tell the disciples of Jesus' resurrection. On their way, they met Jesus, and were told the same thing by him. Matthew doesn't give us any information about the disciple's initial reaction to the story of the women (Matthew 28:1-10). However Mark explains that when Mary Magdalene initially told the disciples she had seen Christ, they did not believe her (Mark 16:11). Two other disciples saw and testified to Jesus' resurrection, and still they did not believe (Mark 16:13). Luke concurs, explaining that the women came with a story of resurrection, but Peter had to go to the tomb to see for himself (Luke 24:11-12). Although John doesn't tell us explicitly the disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene, he recounts in vivid detail how he and Peter ran to the tomb and only believed when they saw it empty (John 20:9).

So the apostles can't make much of a case here. At best, Matthew doesn't mention whether or not they believed the initial eye-witness accounts. The other three gospel writers make it clear that the disciples in fact doubted the testimonies of multiple people who claimed to have seen the Risen Lord. Yet, how often do we refer to them as doubting Peter or doubting John?

This certainly doesn't get Thomas off the hook, as he clearly doubted. But at least he was honest about it. When we have fears, difficulties, even doubts about the Lord, let's not hide them, but acknowledge them, and pray that God will give us the eyes of faith, so we can say, with Thomas, "My Lord and my God!"

The Watchman

I've been very convicted by the following passage recently:

You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me. If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.(Ezekiel 33:7-9)

In the literal sense I think God is telling Ezekiel in no uncertain terms that he must continue to speak the words God gives him, no matter what opposition he faces. We know that the people didn't always accept what Ezekiel had to say (cf. Ezekiel 33:30-33).

But my question is this. Does this passage also have a moral sense? Is the message of the watchman meant not just for Ezekiel, but for all people of faith? The parable of the talents comes to mind (Matt. 25:14-30). There Jesus teaches we are called, in fact we are obligated to use our gifts to build up the kingdom of God. So if we see the coming sword, as the watchman does in Ezekiel 33, are we then obligated to "warn the people" (33:3)?

The only answer that makes sense is the difficult answer: yes. Answering yes means we Christians, who have been blessed with the gift of faith, must use that gift to warn acquaintances, friends, even family members of the sins in their lives. But how can we do this without destroying the relationships we hold so dear? How can we be effective and humble at the same time?

The saints must be our example. I wonder how often Mother Theresea or Padre Pio or John Paul the Great told people about their sins. No, by first recognizing their own sinfulness, begging forgiveness, and living lives of joyful penance, these and many other saintly people are the watchmen for the world each and every day. I don't believe Christians are called to be watchmen like the Pharisees were watchmen, but rather like the saints.

Was Paul assured of his salvation?

A view that is prevelant in Protestant theology is the idea that justification is a one-time, irreversible event. I've heard this described as the "once saved, always saved" mentality. That is, once someone has been justified (I'll leave any discussion of how someone can be justified for a later date, or better, for those with a real knowledge of theology), the process of justification cannot be reversed. People are justified while they are alive, and no matter what they do after that point of justification, they cannot lose their salvation.

This idea certainly has its merits, although I don't believe that it is held by many in Catholic theological circles.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes an interesting statement, that I believe sheds some light on this issue.

But with me, it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby aquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. (1 Cor. 4:3-5, emphasis mine)

I think Paul is clearly discussing justification, since he uses the legal language of aquittal. Also, what could a "commendation from God" when the Lord comes be other than salvation? Paul acknowledges that although he doesn't know of anything that would prevent him from receiving that commendation, he also doesn't know sure that he will receive the commendation. It is up to the Lord to judge him, Paul won't even judge himself.

It seems like Paul was not certain of his salvation. If he wasn't certain, I don't want to claim that I am.

Don't get stuck on Good Friday

I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking recently about the Eucharist, specifically in John 6. As I was sitting in the pew before the the Easter Vigil mass on Saturday I was browsing through the readings for the mass. I noticed that the readings highlighted a number of important parts of salvation history, e.g. the creation account, the crossing of the Red Sea, etc. I found myself wondering why none of the readings referenced the Eucharist. I thought, Easter occurs at the Jewish feast of Passover, and Jesus made the Eucharist the new Passover, so why don't any of the Easter readings refer to the Eucharist? After all, isn't the Eucharist the most important part of Easter? For a moment, I almost convinced myself that the Church had missed something here.

Thankfully, God brought my moment of pride to a crashing halt.

Certainly, the Eucharist is a very important part of Easter. However Easter is not really about the feast of Passover. That is for Holy Thursday and Good Friday. Easter is about Sunday, it is about the Resurrection of Jesus, and of us. Think about this: I don't think the Passover was necessary because God had some blood thirsty desire to kill the first-borns of Egypt. The Passover was necessary to set the Israelites free from slavery. Likewise, the Eucharist (the new Passover) was established not because God had some desire to kill His son, but rather because it is necessary to set us free from slavery to sin.

In St. Augustine's Tracates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Augustine mentions that the Jews in John 6 came to Jesus after the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand not to see more miracles, but as Jesus says, to literally eat again for free. Augustine explains that they have an earthly perspective, instead of a heavenly perspective. I think this is what happened to me. The Eucharist is a great gift of grace to us on Earth, but we can't fail to see why the Eucharist was given to us. It was given to us to save us from our sins (Matt 26:26-28), it was given to us for our salvation.

Thus the culmination of the Eucharist is not Good Friday (although that is the culmination of the new Passover) but rather the culmination of the Eucharist is Easter Sunday. Praise the Lord, He is risen!