Great insights. Thank you.
Another aspect of "flesh" is to look at how there was a sea of chaotic possibilities that God restrained during Creation. Thus, restraining the admixtures of evil...and only allowing the weak and limited (for God does not directly will evil), God saw what He created as "good". From the highest spirit, though weak and limited, to the lowest physical creeper, God saw that it was all "good". Later, it is through our weakness that "sin" and evil enter.
Now, your analysis is "post-fall" and looks to how God took on our sinful nature, but I would suggest that the passage in John is refering more precisely to God taking on the "good"....but weak and limited. When John writes "flesh" I see a great humiliation where the Son takes the lowest place...but only a first step toward the ultimate pouring out of God's perfect mercy on Calvary--the Cross being the epicenter of every perfection in God's merciful side and the place where Mercy and Justice kiss.
I think many people miss the fact that we are limited and will always be limited (for we are not...and will never be a perfect God). That is why the pictures of Heaven talk of fruit for eating and leaves for healing and rivers flowing perpetually toward us with good possibilities....and ever perfecting grace!

Dr. Leithart,

Do you mean to suggest that Jesus took post-lapsarian flesh? This seems to go against the catholic tradition which maintained that Jesus' body did not have sin nature. His body was prelapsarian, not tainted by sin in itself. How could he be the Savior otherwise?

Wow! Well done. That's about the clearest expression of John's opening lines that I have read. I teach a lot of Plato, Pythagoras etc. and it dawned on me reading this piece that what John maybe had it mind here is a resolution to the Platonic divide between our corrupt, finite bodies and our infinite mind/spirit. By taking human form (flesh) instead of just remaining an abstract "Form" (using Plato's terminology),or Logos, Christ (God) forgives or rectifies our faulty flesh through the ultimate act of empathy. We cannot despise our flesh (as Plato would have us do) because God chose this same flesh (as opposed to say, letters in the sky) to inhabit and bring us the Word.
Thus, despising our bodies is akin to despising the very form God chose to give his Son. This is not to say that we should live only for our bodies and become hedonists or health-obsessives, but that there is a way to live in our bodies that is not so corrupt and fleeting, the way of love. Spirit (logos) and flesh were unified in Jesus through the love of God, so something like that is possible for all of us. Good news indeed.

I'm also curious what this might imply for Jesus' sinlessness and, indeed, how the Adam-Christ typology is affected. Doing just a quick word search in John, it seems "flesh" functions in two ways: First, in the way Leithart here suggests (e.g., John 3:6, wherein flesh is opposed to Spirit, as it sometimes is in Paul); and second, with reference to Jesus' embodied human nature ("For my flesh is food indeed"). This second way is of course sacramental, and I wonder if that's not the sense intended in John 1:14, given the relation of the Incarnation to the Eucharist. The Incarnation is the sacrament par excellence, and the Eucharist is a token of the Incarnation.

Is there not something inherently good about the flesh prior to the incarnation? The flesh, like the rest of the "world", fell into the futility you describe, but doesn't something inherently good remain? It is after all God's creation, and our fall doesn't corrupt it. The corruption is in our moving away from it, defying it. This is what Augustine argues in calling the origin of evil disordered desire. In other words, if our desires are ordered, and ordered they become in Christ, the flesh is good. I know the argument beings with "We miss the full force of John’s Advent announcement if we understand 'flesh' as 'body' or 'human nature.' In the Bible, flesh names a particular quality of human life." But when the eternal Word becomes “flesh” isn't that flesh inseparable from body and nature? In other words, when the word "flesh" is used in the Bible pejoratively, isn't the reference not to a substance destined for degeneration and death and defilement, but to our bodies enslaved to disordered desires? In other words, aren’t our disordered desires, and not our flesh the root of corruption?

There is a parallel:

Jesus states, "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!...Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." and, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Is there something inherently corrupt about peace? Or is Jesus talking about the peace that is separate from the peace in him (the result of how he moves in love) and that resides in us when we live in him? We witness so many Christian "peace and justice committees" working on their utopian visions and missing Christ at every turn, to the point that they end up supporting the culture of death. Should we then declare that peace is hopelessly corrupt?

The answer is clear in Jesus’ words: "My peace I give to you." and, "Peace be with you."

When we say that Jesus entered sinful flesh, we do not mean that the flesh is inherently corrupt, but that the flesh in its falleness is subjected to disordered desires, prone to temptations. Jesus in this sinful flesh was prone to temptation, but he remained, in every second, in ordered desire, free of the possessive ontology that is at the heart of disordered desire. So it is that he took on "sinful flesh" in that he took on weakened flesh, but still a flesh that is good in its createdness. When Jesus was still in the flesh that had not yet been transfigured, he still said, as Leroy Huizenga points out, "For my flesh is food indeed." He didn’t say the flesh after he rises.

Just as peace willed on our own terms in defiance of God (separate from the fire and sword of the Holy Spirit) is corrupt, so, too, is the flesh that wills in defiance of what God wills. But neither peace nor flesh is inherently corrupt, only in how it moves away from what God wills. A concrete example of this is the degenerating flesh of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Who wouldn't want their face pressed up against hers, no doubt an entering into peace?

This is very beautiful, and I am copying it to read again a few times during advent. Thank you. Sometime I have wondered whether by taking on death-bound flesh God really dug just a little deeper than you recite here, and in fact by his resurrection has given eternal life to all of material nature. That would explain why the trees clap their hands, maybe. :)

To Jeremy, Leroy, Gil, et al.:

Well done, Gents. Despite his modest erudition, Dr. Leithart of the Reformed Evangelical Church cannot possibly understand or appreciate the true Catholic doctrine of the incarnation so long as he remains intractably wedded to "reformation principles."

Also, if you take a second, deeper look into what he writes above, you will find the specter of Luther lurking in the ongoing misunderstanding of human nature and how it was impacted via original sin, which led to Christ's Incarnation and overall redemptive work.

Alas, Dr. Leithart's musings fit in well with his watered down "the word of God is the only authority theology"(while of course using his "authority" to explain what it means), but it also accounts, at least in part, for his failure to accept Catholic doctrines concerning the Eucharist and Transubstantiation, which also requires a greater understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation that does not commit the same oversights, however cleverly worded they may be, reflected in Dr. Leithart's inadequate, purely subjective theology.

For some basic references, please see the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 461 - 488, especially paragraphs 461 and 470.

By the bye, the Church does use the term human nature in discussing the Incarnation. Consider this carefully in light of Dr. Leithart's rejection of this concept in his first paragraph above. Once again, we see the faulty approach of rigid, more fundamentalist-type approaches to reading/interpreting the bible. Most unfortunate, and also unfortunate that some Catholics are persuaded by such un-Catholic comments set forth by Dr. Leithart.

Perhaps some truly Catholic biblical experts can take up this extremely important topic and illustrate why Dr. Leithart's theology may satisfy his congregation, but it
should not satisfy Catholics who must believe in the basic goodness of God's creation and what the Incarnation truly means in this regard.

Dear Dr. Veritatis,

There has been a terrible war raging within the Catholic Church the last 50 years, kicked into high gear with the publication of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, "Humanae Vitae". And many of us soldiers were terribly wounded during this time, and I suspect you might have been one of us (and many of us would have gladly suffered torture and death for the many wayward theologians, priests and bishops to have turned homeward to Our Lord). But Dr. Leithart, not being Catholic, certainly was not one of our persecutors. In fact, for me it was often the many Protestants who sought to remain true to Our Lord who kept me sane and well during this time (most especially the Evangelical preachers on television).

The most important lesson of the 20th century is that the only way to fight any war is in love. And it is my solid impression that Dr. Leithart is a Christian lover, in the tradition of our beloved Richard John Neuhaus. And can't we safely say that if Fr. Neuhaus had not crossed over into the gestalt of the Catholic Church, he would have remained the Christian lover he is? Weren't there Lutherans, Calvinists and other separated brethren who died alongside Catholics in Hitler's death camps for staying true to Our Lord? And isn't the truest sign of being Christian martyrdom?

We as Christians can argue doctrine all day long, but at the end of the day what will matter most is if we keep Our Lord’s commandment to love one another as he loves us. Jesus did not love Peter any less when he chastised him with the words, “Get behind me, Satan!” (Something we fallen creatures could never say to brethren, separated or not, for we, unlike Our Lord, would be speaking from presumption.)

I always look forward to Dr. Leithart’s essays in First Things (a periodical that lives and breathes ecumenism), and am grateful for any theological insights and corrections he has, always written in love, that help me in the most important journey of my life—into holiness. We are fortunate to have him writing in these pages, especially since he always writes from Christian love.

Perhaps the most important act for a Christian in love who seeks unity (abiding in Our Lord’s commandment that we be one) is to lovingly embrace all loving correction. What we could never embrace is accusation, for the origin of accusation is the accuser. I certainly fall victim to this most grievous fault, even in my family with those I would easily die for.

Many Thanks for Your Overture, Gil. Please see my bracketed comments at various points under your comments reproduced below.

Dear Dr. Veritatis,

There has been a terrible war raging within the Catholic Church the last 50 years, kicked into high gear with the publication of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, "Humanae Vitae".

{A most beautiful and prescient document that still serves as a sign of contradiction in its own right.}

And many of us soldiers were terribly wounded during this time, and I suspect you might have been one of us (and many of us would have gladly suffered torture and death for the many wayward theologians, priests and bishops to have turned homeward to Our Lord). But Dr. Leithart, not being Catholic, certainly was not one of our persecutors.

{Perhaps not, but if he accepts contraception/birth control, then he gives aid to the persecutors within. Moreover, if he defends the practice and proclaims it to be acceptable to God, he may very well be a persecutor in not standing up for the truth.}

In fact, for me it was often the many Protestants who sought to remain true to Our Lord who kept me sane and well during this time (most especially the Evangelical preachers on television).

{Most unfortunate. How many of these preachers, do you suppose, were/are against birth control, etc.? Were they really helping you as much as they could have?}

{Also, how does one remain true if they do not accept the truth of history and the establishment of the one True Church by Our Lord and Savior? Was Jesus Christ wasting his time? Have the Church Fathers and Saints throughout the ages had it all wrong by insisting on the purity of doctrine as much as the Holy Spirit will allow?}

The most important lesson of the 20th century is that the only way to fight any war is in love.

{Truth must be at the base of love, especially since our Lord declared Himself to be the Truth…and not Love, by the way.}

And it is my solid impression that Dr. Leithart is a Christian lover, in the tradition of our beloved Richard John Neuhaus.

{Father Neuhaus eventually saw the light. Do you believe he was helped in this regard by others who may have advised him that love was all that truly matters?}

And can't we safely say that if Fr. Neuhaus had not crossed over into the gestalt of the Catholic Church, he would have remained the Christian lover he is?

{Perhaps, but he would have done so without the fullness of truth that provides a greater opportunity for greater union with Christ…beyond all other faiths, especially since Christ and His Church are One. This cannot be accomplished by others outside the true faith, though some may be very close indeed, and closer than Catholics who do not appreciate the fullness of the truth as well as they should.}

Weren't there Lutherans, Calvinists and other separated brethren who died alongside Catholics in Hitler's death camps for staying true to Our Lord?

{Were all of these people in the death camps because of their faith?}

And isn't the truest sign of being Christian martyrdom?

{What about Jews and atheists and others in the death camps? Were they capable of a kind of “Christian” martyrdom for their “witness”?}

We as Christians can argue doctrine all day long, but at the end of the day what will matter most is if we keep Our Lord’s commandment to love one another as he loves us.

{But which one is the greatest commandment that must come first?}

Jesus did not love Peter any less when he chastised him with the words, “Get behind me, Satan!” (Something we fallen creatures could never say to brethren, separated or not, for we, unlike Our Lord, would be speaking from presumption.)

{What is the context of our Lord’s rebuke? Moreover, must fraternal correction take only a form that you approve or fits your style?}

I always look forward to Dr. Leithart’s essays in First Things (a periodical that lives and breathes ecumenism)

{Be careful that you do not fall into the trap of “ecumenitis.” You might want to check our beloved Dietrich von Hildebrand’s work in this regard. Once again, the full expression of truth is the key to acting with Christ-like love.}

, and am grateful for any theological insights and corrections he has

{ :-( Awfully, awfully presumptuous of you, attributing “corrections” to where they do not belong, and for which you righty chastised (in a mild fashion) the flawed understanding of human nature/flesh that Dr. Leithart is offering for consideration and consumption.}

, always written in love, that help me in the most important journey of my life—into holiness. We are fortunate to have him writing in these pages, especially since he always writes from Christian love.

{How much better would it be if Dr. Leithart would write from Catholic love? If he is going to comment on doctrine, and his doctrine does not fully square with Catholic doctrine, he does not get a free pass from me because he misleads or provides incomplete “explanations” in “ Christian love.”}

Perhaps the most important act for a Christian in love who seeks unity (abiding in Our Lord’s commandment that we be one)

{Would it be acceptable to become one under Dr. Leithart’s “reformed theology”?}

is to lovingly embrace all loving correction.

{Let us hope and pray that Dr. Leithart, like Father Neuhaus before him, will lovingly embrace the corrections offered by you, me, and others.}

What we could never embrace is accusation, for the origin of accusation is the accuser.

{Fascinating. The Church has done this for years, echoing our accusing Lord who proclaimed that he came to set families against families, etc. in order to defend the truth. How many councils accused this person or that person of various heresies? Moreover, in cases involving Canon Law, there must be an accusation whenever someone is involved in doing something that the Church will not permit.}

I certainly fall victim to this most grievous fault, even in my family with those I would easily die for.

{Let us pray for Dr. Leithart’s complete conversion to the One True Faith.}

{God Bless!}

Dr. Veritatis,

Thanks for responding with your concerns. As you rightly point out, the martyr of the innocent in the holocaust of abortion, if thought deeply about, would horrify the mind and generate a terrible sadness that would make it difficult to go on living in this world except by the grace of Our Lord. But in all honesty, before I became aware of this holocaust, I not only supported abortion in principle, but even escorted a woman to an abortion mill to procure one. When she was leaving the operation room unescorted, she fell down a flight of stairs. On the bus home, during a discussion with my her, I got terribly angry, but I wasn’t aware of why until years later, when I realized that I was interiorly injured in allowing myself to be made an accomplice in a murder of an innocent human being. Nevertheless, I was one of those whom Jesus addresses when he declared from the Cross, “Forgive them, Father—they know not what they do.” This is one of many reasons I have come to understand that it is important to name a sin, especially the sin of murdering an innocent child, but not accusing the person, i.e., not assuming that the person is totally or even partially cognizant of their action: they might, at the most, feel the pangs of a conscience that they have been distanced from by others in the dominant culture of death.

When considering those separated brethren who do seek a holy life with no awareness of how the Catholic Church possesses a fullness that you and I perceive, I always call to mind Jesus’ directive when his apostles brought to his attention those driving out demons in his name who had never followed him:

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.” (Mark 9:38-41)

When I read Dr. Liethart’s piece here, I received many gifts of insight (water), and where I disagreed, whether theologically right or wrong in disagreeing, the water was in no way polluted (I even thought at one point I was making too much out of a nuanced meaning, for in the body of his essay he is also in agreement with us, as in “[Paul] bears the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus is shown forth in ‘our mortal flesh’ (2 Corinthians 4).”).

There is a question you raise that deserves volumes of response, and in responding here I am certain that it will be necessarily inadequate, not only because of time and space, but of my inadequate theological understanding. Your question: “Also, how does one remain true if they do not accept the truth of history and the establishment of the one True Church by Our Lord and Savior? Was Jesus Christ wasting his time? Have the Church Fathers and Saints throughout the ages had it all wrong by insisting on the purity of doctrine as much as the Holy Spirit will allow?”

Even Aquinas, truly a saint and possibly the most intelligent man who has ever lived after Jesus, got doctrine wrong sometimes, as in failing to understand that the soul is one with the body at conception, and even on his deathbed he would declare from a partial beatific vision that his Summa was all straw. And then there is the saintly Church Father Origen who insisted against Church teaching that there is no hell, or if there is, no mortal would end up there. In our time we had a true son of the Church in Tielhard de Chardin who, in my humble opinion, went astray doctrinally on more than a few points in his theological vision, being so poetically enamored with God’s presence in the evolutionary process.

Who among us, including you and I, have not gone astray in some fashion from the doctrinal formulations of the Church? Since my return to the Church 26 years ago the doctrinal corrections began and have not abated, and, as I wrote earlier, those corrections often coming from Protestants. The grand model of the proper relationship between Protestant and Catholic is no doubt the relationship between two theological giants of the 20th century, Karl Barth (Evangelical) and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

I believe Fr. Neuhaus knew that love alone is credible before he entered the Catholic confession, and I also believe that his Catholic understanding of the faith was deeper than many faithful Catholics before he entered that confession.

It does occur in the lives of some Christians where in faith they are presented with a decision, to make a choice, whether they will die with Christ in martyrdom or fearfully succumb to an evil force that threatens them; and yes, there were certainly Christians from different confessions who made the choice for Christ and ended up in one of Hitler’s death camps.

Christian fraternal correction is always from love, and is never an accusation against the other, but only in opposition to the sin he knowingly or unknowingly is committing. When Jesus states that he has come to cause division, even amongst family members, he was making the point that human love (even of family members, even in great romances) will never suffice, that in those situations of grand human love we are turning away from him, failing to love God with our whole heart and mind. And the irony is that when we love God with our whole heart and mind, we love our family, lovers, friends and even our enemies with a love that is never diminished and never dies, the only love they deserve as children of God. To accuse a person is always a slamming a door on God’s love.

Ecumenism, for me, is at its core a loving conversation with a Christian of another Christian confession. It is derived from an aching heart, a gentle love of our brother or sister, that seeks only to encourage the other to continue on a path that leads best to the Godhead. If they are confident of the path they are on, I must trust in God’s providence to guide them, and know always that there is a good chance they will get to the Godhead before me.

“Would it be acceptable to become one under Dr. Liethart’s ‘reformed theology’?” I don’t believe it is possible to become one under any theology. Only with love is it possible.

Peace be with you, Dr. Veritatis.

Dr. Veritatis,

I failed to respond to your most important consideration (I am limited to 1 ½ hours at the library and rush through responses): "Truth must be at the base of love, especially since our Lord declared Himself to be the Truth..."

This is true, but this is also true: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:8)

From this it can be deduced that the Truth and Love that is Our Lord is not in any way separate. And not understanding this is what perpetually causes divisions in families and in cultures. Any love that in any way lacks truth is not the Love that is God, and any truth that lacks love is not the Truth that is God. God has three carved-in-stone names that I know of: "I Am", "Truth", and "Love".

Greetings, Gil:

I think you actually missed most of what I was getting at, though you did nail part of it concerning truth.

Just a few points, then, to emphasize what is indeed most important:

1. Since God is indeed love and the truth, the two must go together at all times. As such, we cannot claim to honor God as much as possible if we do not seek to express the truth of God's love at all times.

2. "Accusations." Dr. Leithart takes a cheap shot at Catholic doctrine when he makes the following Accusation:

We miss the full force of John’s Advent announcement if we understand
“flesh” as “body” or “human nature.”

The incarnation is indeed our Lord taking on human nature. This is Catholic doctrine that goes beyond and deeper than Dr. Leithart's Lutheranesque, reformed theology focus on a more literal "flesh."

Now, if you want to give Dr. Leithart a pass for making such a false accusation (and based on what you have written, you dislike the whole idea of accusations) that impugns Catholic teaching, then so be it. A false or misguided love is not of God, and so we cannot simply claim that this or that is okay if we determine it comes from love.

For instance, imagine a man who helps a loved one commit suicide because they are suffering x, y, or z, yet the suffering person's condition is not even close to being terminal. In such a circumstance, the assisting person cannot be exonerated, excused, or claimed to be part of our Lord's greater body in the assisting act if he declares that he only assisted out of love,...and that since God is love, what he did was a loving act and a good one as well. Moreover, to not accuse of a serious wrongdoing would demonstrate a lack of love for God and innocent life.
___________________

So a claim of love or even Christian love alone will not always be enough concerning our actions, and when error is involved, it most certainly isn't worthy of praise because we ascribe loving motivations to the person committing the error.

Again, Dr. Leithart diminished, nay disqualified, a Catholic understanding of human nature and what Christ took on via the incarnation, and since what he wrote lacks the fullness of truth, it requires a vigorous critique.

As for Aquinas et al., they would do what Dr. Leithart likely does not do. They would submit their work to the Church for final judgment on the accuracy or truth. Do you suppose that Dr. Leithart would submit any of his doctrinal and/or biblical musings to a Catholic authority for review and corrections? Does he even recognize such an authority? Does he presume such authority for himself?

Accordingly, to become truly one, we must accept the Church that Christ established with Peter (not Leithart :-) ) as its head. We cannot become one under Dr. Leithart's reformed theology church, because to even attempt to do so would be to slap our Lord in the face by telling him in no uncertain terms that His establishing the One True Church was/is not important.

The best thing you can do for any brother is to reach out with Catholic truth, not excuse incomplete or misleading partial truths because you appreciate the person setting them forth. Even angels preaching different doctrines must be rejected, we are clearly told.
______________________

If Dr. Leithart is convinced that his reformed theology is a legitimate or even better representation of the truth, let him with Christian courage clearly set forth in this column his honest positions concerning the Catholic understanding of the following:

1. Transubstantiation

2. The Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

3. The Papacy, and Papal Infallibility

4. Purgatory

5. Original Sin

6. Church Interpretation vs. Private Interpretation of the Bible

7. The Canon of the Bible

8. The Episcopacy and Priesthood

9. Confessing to a Priest
____________________________

In short, let's find out just how close his reformed theology is to Catholic doctrine. By doing this, we can then examine all of his writings on biblical and/or doctrinal matters in a more prudent manner to see how much we can possibly accept without being led astray.......even if out of "love." Moreover, we can engage Dr. Leithart in a truly ecumenical way by openly, courageously, and courteously discussing the differences that prevent us from being truly one. Ignoring such differences under some false irenicism helps no one and could bring about more harm.
___________________________

Lastly, Gil, a question for you: Do you hope and pray for Dr. Leithart's conversion to Catholicism, or does it not matter to you?

God Bless!

Dr. V

Dr. Veritatis,

Your first point I wholeheartedly agree with, and I would emphasize the qualification “if we do not seek to express the truth of God’s love at all times.” The fact is I have seriously pursued this after returning to the Church 26 years ago, but have on many occasions failed to grasp the truth in its fullness, and sometimes not at all, and this no doubt will remain so until I reach the beatific vision in the afterlife.

I disagree with your 2nd point that Dr. Leithart takes a cheap shot at Catholic doctrine when he makes an “Accusation” in stating “We miss the full force of John’s Advent announcement if we understand ‘flesh’ as ‘body’ or ‘human nature’.” I agree with you that doctrinally in Catholicism one should understand human flesh as body and human nature. But I did not get the impression that Leithart was making an assault on Catholic doctrine, but instead was using Scripture to make his point about “sinful flesh” and what he perceives that to be. In other words, in writing the piece I don’t think there was any intention to criticize Catholic doctrine. This, of course, is my opinion, but your interpretation is also an opinion. There is no “evidence” that either of us is correct.

Brilliant Catholic theologians who pursued holiness throughout their lives and remained true sons of the Church would sometimes disagree on doctrinal statements. Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner come to mind (so much so that in some cases that the Church will have to at some point decide between one or the other’s formulation). This is a process that John Henry Newman called “the development of doctrine.” I am of the opinion that where Protestants and Catholics disagree on doctrine, over time the disagreements will contribute to the development of doctrine, and we as Church will be richer for it. That in no way mitigates the horror of separation, or puts doctrinal formulations from Christian confessions other than Catholic on the same footing for Catholics, but we must in love trust that during the last 1600 years of painful separation there has been a providential dynamic that will in the end benefit the Church, and the way we can support that providential movement is to love one another and engage each other theologically in that love, modeled for us in the life of Barth and Balthasar.

“A false or misguided love is not of God, and so we cannot simply claim that this or that is okay if we determine it comes from love.” We must never claim that anything false is ok, even from an obvious act of love. And although even the saints have been misguided in their human love, a love not being from God but from human compassion or other human source, God remained with them in a special way, peculiar to the saints’ disposition to do His will with a willingness to sacrifice all, even though, they, like you and I, fall into moments of defying God’s will, regardless how “minor” those rebellions may appear, and why so many saints feel threatened by hell in matters that we see as mild venial sins. The saints would argue, “Yes. Venial! But my awareness of it being sinful and doing it any way makes it mortal!” Paul agonized over these failings his whole life, failings that no one escapes from, for we are creatures in a fallen world.

“Moreover, to not accuse of a serious wrongdoing would demonstrate a lack of love for God and innocent life.” I agree with you here. But we must distinguish between an accusation directed at a behavior and the person involved in that behavior. My favorite phrase in constitutional law is “mitigating circumstances.” It speaks volumes not only of justice but of God’s mercy, the highest form of justice. When the Catechism explains that masturbation is a mortal sin, it goes on to explain that there can be mitigating circumstances that would not mark the person for hell if he died without recognizing the need to confess. That is what I mean when I say that to accuse a person is always a presumption, for there is no way for us to ever calculate what mitigating circumstances were involved in a mortal sin committed. We rightfully name abortion as murder, and we rightly identify it as an act that can send you straight to hell, but we cannot accuse a person ever, because to be able to accuse a person would require that we know every facet of what constitutes that person’s identity, and I would argue that most persons are living out a false identity: they don’t even have a clue as to who they really are. They are tragic figures. Sorrow, the sorrow that Jesus experienced when he looked around at all those terrified and lonely persons outside the tomb of Lazarus. One of them said of Jesus’ tears, “Look how much he loved Lazarus.” No—Jesus knew with absolute authority and confidence that Lazarus would be raised. His tears were for those who lived in sin and knew not the depths of what those sins were and how those sins crippled them. Can we claim that any person who has committed suicide has gone to hell? If not, why not? The Church teaches that we can’t, and not only because the person might have confessed to God in the seconds before dying, but because the Church in her wisdom is humbled by the incomprehensible mystery of the human person made in God’s image and likeness.

The doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic faith are essential, but they, like Scripture and Tradition, are part of an organic whole. Organic. This is what Newman came to understand. If we Catholics can argue all day long about what a particular doctrine or dogma actually means (and a true son of the Church sometimes getting it wrong), why can’t we do the same with our Protestant brothers and sisters? They are baptized: we are brothers and sisters in Christ: they are the Mystical Body of Christ.

Beloved John was in a panic when he looked around and saw so many false Christs running around not long after Christ’s resurrection, calling them the anti-Christ! This concern grew in him until God gave him a relentless vision, what we call Revelation. There is no doubt in my mind that John’s singular concern was the unification of all Christians. He knew better than anyone the seriousness of Jesus’ commandment for us to love one another (do we really want to violate that command?), that there simply was no other way for those outside the faith to know us, to really know us, not just accept us, embrace us and even join us. That’s why John’s criticism for Ephesus is the harshest of all the criticism he had for all the churches of his time. And check out what he says about Ephesus: it was the most Catholic of all the churches. It got everything right in every way, including a precise understanding of doctrine. No anti-Christs in Ephesus! Whereas the other churches had many failings, Ephesus had only one: they failed to love as they had in the beginning, and for that error, that violation of Jesus’ command, their lamps would be taken away from them if they did not repent and love one another again. In other words, perfect as they were in every respect, they lacked the one essential and had not a single ray of hope for the world: their light was not a light that shone on the world, but a light swallowed up by the neon light of Satan.

And finally, I pray that everyone outside the Catholic confession enter it, including Dr. Leithart, but humbled in the same instance in Our Lord's promise that "the last will be first and the first last". I know we can make of that what we will, but for me it is Jesus' telling us that he who listens to the Holy Spirit speaking to him from his heart and deciding to act on that communication in love will certainly be among those who are first, even a person so isolated in some fashion that he never heard of Christianity. And those pious Christians that abide like those in Ephesus, but fail to love, will be last.

God bless and keep you,

Gil

Dr. Veritatis,

Rushing out the door (my time is up on the computer at the library) and entered the tex code instead of my name on my last post.

Cheers!

Many thanks, Gil. I believe we are coming to the end of this fun yet still serious chat, but a few more important points should be emphasized.

1. The accusation by Dr. Leithart is indeed a cheap shot (in and of itself regardless of personal intention) because he specifically points out that referring to the incarnation as taking on human nature, which is the definitive Catholic position, is lacking a proper understanding that Dr. Leithart will then treat us to in his private interpretation of biblical reality.

1a. Let's first assume the purest of intentions, but then ask this question: Why is there an emphasis on declaring the Catholic doctrine (without naming it as such, which also raises some questions) on the incarnation to be lacking in understanding? Where did Dr. Leithart come up with the notion that some people wrongly understand the doctrine in his private interpretation opinion?

1b. So the cheap shot in and of itself is a fact, not just my interpretation. One does not have to specifically set forth that it is a Catholic doctrine that is being criticized in order to still criticize that doctrine as Dr. Leithart clearly does.

2. In the past, many people have been sincere in their approaches to doctrine, but sincerity is not enough. Heresies or misunderstandings or partial truths must not be accepted because the person setting them forth is a fine fellow who wants to serve Christ...albeit not in accordance with Christ's one true Church and Christ's command to follow Him through his one true Church with the Pope as the head.

3. Crucial Error: As devoted Catholics, we are not permitted to question the basic meanings of settled doctrine as explained by the Magisterium. As such, we cannot argue amongst ourselves what a particular doctrine means as you claim we can do. Consider the short list of basics I set forth in my previous post. They cannot be argued so as to claim different meanings can possibly be applied to them.

And we certainly can't take anything away from such doctrines, as is often done by misguided people outside the Church to push their own theology.

3a. So once again, it is also proper to accuse and confront Dr. Leithart on his flawed understanding of the incarnation, and seek his conversion to the one True Faith in a more rigorous fashion then by giving him a pass because he's probably a good guy.

4. Moreover, flawed understandings can lead others astray, and a proper understanding of the incarnation plays a significant role in other cherished beliefs including original sin, the Eucharist (keep in mind that our Lord first provided the Eucharist prior to the redemption), faith and works, and so on. By itself, Dr. Leithart's flawed understanding may not seem like much, but think about the organic whole you mentioned. Then start to chip away at the whole by diminishing or changing essential meanings, and before you know it, the proper relationship with the Lord and His Church can be undermined as was done over the years, especially with the misguided Reformation and its ongoing aftermath, including one particular heresy known as "reformed theology."
____________________________________

Now, what do you suppose is the likelihood that Dr. Leithart will clearly and courageously address any (if not all) of the 9 points concerning Catholic doctrine set forth in my previous message? St. Peter advises that we should always be ready to give an answer for the faith that is in us (1 Pet 3:15). How about Dr. Peter?

Keep praying for Dr. Leithart and for all.

God Bless

DV

DV

"As devoted Catholics, we are not permitted to question the basic meanings of settled doctrine as explained by the Magisterium." Basic meanings, no. But new light generated from those basic meanings allow us to view more fully the doctrine, and when, for example, a theologian views a particular doctrine from a new angle of light, debate will often spring up, and in time the doctrine will be viewed more fully, and this will continue in time until we reach the beatific vision at the end of time, the ultimate light of Our Lord. From Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

A quote from Father Ron Rolheiser's most recent syndicated column, “Prayer as Seeking Depth”:

"What impressed [the apostles] and what they wanted for their own lives was the depth and graciousness of his soul. The power they admired and wanted was Jesus' power to love and forgive his enemies rather than embarrass and crush them.
"What they wanted was his power to renounce life in self-sacrifice, even while retaining the enviable capacity to enjoy the pleasures of life without guilt.
"What they wanted was Jesus' power to be big-hearted, to love beyond his own tribe and love poor and rich alike, to live inside of charity, joy, peace, patience, goodness, long-suffering, fidelity, mildness, and chastity, despite everything within life that militates against these virtues."

Yes, doctrines are essential, which means, as you point out, their basic meanings are carved in stone, but it is also true that rich meanings will grow out of those basic meanings, an unfolding in time in different situations and cultures. This is the organic base of doctrinal life.

For example. We can look at a particular doctrine as a lamp that gifts us with true light, and that light is a light that remains true for all time and into eternity. We all of us stumble in the dark, and when we chance upon a doctrine it is like a lamppost that lights up our path. Its development in time broadens its light (and its development never ceases). But no matter how bright it shines, a particular doctrine will never light up all of the darkness. So we have a choice: cling to the lamppost, or move out into the darkness, confident that we will discover more lampposts. Doctrines are there to light our way, and I'm sure we both agree to this. The ever-present danger is that we will cling to doctrine as one would to an oasis in a desert. Its substance and value is permanent, but the journey is a never standing still, and perhaps this is what is at the heart of the development of doctrine: ever more light is generated from doctrines in time to broaden their light our way to the Godhead.

God bless, good friend in Christ,

Gil

Thanks again, Gil.

The primary problem with Dr. Leithart's theology is that he is not adding new light, but taking away from the Catholic understanding and enlightened understanding of Christ taking on a human nature, and a sinless one at that, which he gave to all of us prior to his redemptive work on the Cross. This touches on many cherished Church teachings that impact how we respond to God's call.

As such, Dr. Leithart is not contributing to the development of doctrine (when such doctrines are unsettled), but purposely corrupting or diminishing the proper understanding of the settled doctrine of the incarnation that we cannot accept. He has presented his own personal and seriously flawed theology on a most important article of faith.

Please review part 4 from my previous post as a modest summation of some of the problems that can develop when false doctrine is presented.

Once more, what about my question concerning the good doctor's views on the 9 points previously set forth? Do you believe he will have the Christian courage to address any or all of these points directly in these pages? Perhaps you and others can encourage him to take up the simple yet important challenge to let us all know what he believes and why. Then we will have a real and open basis for an ecumenical dialogue instead of trying to see truth where it doesn't exist, especially when heretical ideas are presented piecemeal in a kind of stealth manner (again, regardless of the possible good will intention).

In the spirit of open dialogue, what do you suppose would have been the reaction by some who got fooled a bit by Dr. Leithart's comments if, after declaring people to be missing the boat on flesh and human nature, he clearly and openly stated something along the following lines?:

"Of course, I recognize that Catholic Church doctrine declares that Christ's taking on flesh is the assuming of a sinless human nature in order to help effectuate our redemption, and the Church has taught this for nearly 2,000 years, but my personal interpretation of the bible leads me to believe that the Catholic Church doctrine is inaccurate, and here's why........"

:-)Imagine such honesty and open disclosure.

Best Wishes and God Bless!

DV

Every man's life -- EVERY-- testifies that we are all material heretics though not formal heretics. You have a Pope even if it is yourself. Calvin is either totally right when he teaches 'ex cathedra' or he is subject to the person who corrects him.

I am Catholic by the grace of God and I too pray for Dr Leithart. There's no superiority in that prayer only the hope that someday all will know what is essential to the Gospel and what isn't.