Search Results for Faith and Reason
Many people see faith and reason as two approaches to life existing at opposite ends of the cognitive spectrum. It could be argued, however, that faith and reason are not always separate and (consciously or unconsciously) work together.
An example of faith and reason unconsciously working together could be found in those who make a god out of reason. These folks still come from a faith position, but their faith is placed in reason instead of God or some divine power.
On this point or, at least, on a similar point, the philosopher David Hume offered a now famous critique of causality.
Hume’s metaphysics, in particular his critique of the belief in cause and effect, remains an important challenge to our conventional way of seeing. All we can be sure of, says Hume, is that certain events occur one after another in a given region and for a certain duration.
In billiards, for instance, the white ball appears to cause the motion of other balls when impacting them on the billiard table. But here’s the radical part. Hume says that all we can truly know is that, in the past, the first ball impacted and the other balls moved. We cannot prove that the first ball’s impact will always be followed by movement of the other balls. And for Hume, there is no rational way to demonstrate a causal connection.¹
In most world religions, faith is said to be primary to reason. In Catholic theology faith is described as a supernatural virtue whereas reason is said to be a natural power. For Catholics or, indeed, anyone, both faith and reason are concerned with truth and need not conflict.
However, it seems that many insecure individuals who have been brainwashed by a cultic or even by some silly religious or scientific teaching desperately cling to a kind of misplaced faith by believing in things that are not true or, perhaps, egregiously facile.
Similarly, we find not a few self-professed thinkers who are hooked on their own faulty logic, colored by unconscious personal biases.
In their best form, faith and reason are potentially harmonious. We can live life by testing our pet hypotheses and by keeping our beliefs and theories open to revision. For many, however, faith and reason are often imperfect and discordant.
Thinkers like the Hungarian-born Arthur Koestler (1905-83) believed that clunky linkages between our human cognitive faculties (such as faith and reason) result from conflicting evolutionary additions to the human brain, additions that happened by chance instead of through any kind of grand, intelligent design. But this approach is no more subject to empirical verification than one that accepts inconsistency and inner conflict as steps toward integration and its corollary, integrity.
- David Hume (earthpages.wordpress.com)
- Are Faith and Reason Compatible? (str.typepad.com)
- Faith Vs. Reason? Or Faith in Reason… Reasonable Faith..? (ryanfaulk.wordpress.com)
- By Way of Introduction (thetwowings.wordpress.com)
- Do you or do you not support reason? (verbosestoic.wordpress.com)
- Leap of Faith or Failure of Reason? (vridar.wordpress.com)
- Vatican commission affirms scripture as ‘soul of theology’ (mumbailaity.wordpress.com)
- The Reason Obama’s Faith Is Questioned (theroot.com)
- William Lane Craig discusses faith and reason with university students (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
- Accomplished by Faith… (webmasteryates.wordpress.com)
Most world religions speak of an inextricable link between faith and morals.
In the religious sense, to have faith is to try to please God and this involves making the right moral choices. At least, this is one approach to faith. Another approach is that you can do whatever you want and God will forgive you—providing, most would add, that a sincere attempt to stop doing the bad thing is made somewhere down the line.
Any discussion of faith and morals will likely include a section on laws. In the Old Testament the Jewish people are faced with a variety of laws, said to be from God and also to preserve and enhance one’s relationship with God.
In the New Testament, Jesus really only speaks of two laws—love God and love one another.
In liberal democracies today, laws are said to be based on natural reason. However, their impetus arguably is supernatural—that is, an awareness (based on faith and informed by grace) that morality is essential to the human condition.
So the supposed separation of the “supernatural” and “legal” realms could be seen as somewhat artificial. That point aside, one could also argue that this kind of distinction is not necessarily the same as the separation of “Church” and “State,” mainly because organized religions by their very nature contain not just supernatural but also political dimensions, as does any kind of social group.
- Faith (earthpages.wordpress.com)
- Faith and Action (earthpages.wordpress.com)
- Ethics and Respect Thrive with an Absolute Separation of Church and State (randomreflectionz.wordpress.com)
- Rick Santorum Says Separation of Church and State Makes Him Want to Vomit: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
In secular usage “faith” [Latin fidere = trust] refers to believing in something or someone. “I have faith in the system” the man or woman on the street might say when asked about societal problems.
In a non-denominational, spiritual sense it refers to believing in a loving, supernatural power or God and that things will eventually work out. That is, it’s a view of optimism.
In the general religious sense, faith in part refers to believing in a fixed set of teachings.
The Hebrew term for faith (emunah) originally meant trust in God but in the Middle Ages it came to mean believing that God exists and that the Jewish dogmas were correct.
In Hinduism faith generally means a belief that things will eventually work out and that justice will be served – for the good and the bad – as a result of the law of karma.
In Christianity, faith generally refers to the belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior—a perfectly loving and good, omnipotent, omniscient eternal Being belonging to the Holy Trinity.
In Catholicism faith is understood as both an objective truth and a subjective virtue. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
Objectively, it [faith] stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church…presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.¹
- Faith and Action (earthpages.wordpress.com)
- Galatians 3:9&14 (gracegalatians.wordpress.com)
- Fear or Faith ??? (footsoldiers4christ.wordpress.com)
- What Is A Vigorous Faith In God? (samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com)
- Accomplished by Faith… (webmasteryates.wordpress.com)
- You might be a hypocrite if…you turn Jesus’ message of faith and love into one of fear and hate. (god-still-speaks.com)
- Faith (briancoatney.com)
The relationship between faith and action raises some interesting questions, many of which are largely overlooked in contemporary society.
For starters, most religions advocate the necessity of action to keep faith alive. Action, in fact, is highly regarded in Western culture. But the meaning of the term ‘action’ is often loaded with cultural assumptions and, therefore, misunderstood.
We could say, for instance, that Trappist monks are more inwardly active than externally so. These monks, being one of the more contemplative sort, believe that their internal prayer life has positive effects on other people, just as the great saints believed that they interceded for other souls.
So if his beliefs are true, the Trappist monk is extremely active, but most of us don’t see it that way.
Faith-based action also takes a more worldly form, a form which everyone can easily understand and appreciate. Here I’m talking about charities and goodwill missions that serve the needy.
In most instances, it’s likely that a continuum exists between contemplative and worldly action. And it seems that those disposed to contemplation understand the good works of worldly folk but the converse is rarely true. This, perhaps, explains why in Hinduism the path of knowledge (jnana-yoga) is said to be more difficult than the path of action (karma-yoga). Active people often become hostile towards contemplatives. And sometimes they can even be abusive.
Along these lines, some orthodox and gnostic Christians, alike, interpret these words of Jesus Christ to his disciples as a warning to keep an eye out for vulgar materialists:
Mind you, no discussion of spirituality and abuse would be complete without calling attention to the opposite situation where charismatic gurus with an abundance of numinous powers swamp gullible disciples and, in so doing, are just as abusive toward individuals as vulgar materialists can be to potential saints. The abuse is different. But it’s still abuse.
In less extreme scenarios it seems reasonable to suggest that contemplatives and active individuals can keep each other in check, providing, or course, the rules of fair play are observed. By this I mean that some contemplatives can get smug, lazy, and authoritarian. And a good kick in the pants from an active person might, in some instances, actually help to realign them to their saintly calling (if not perhaps in the way that the active person envisioned it).
By the same token, the active person at times needs to be ‘toned down’ by the wisdom of the contemplative. For if a contemplative is truly focusing on God (and not some strange power), over time they should begin to accrue at least some wisdom that others could benefit from.
- Courageous faith in action through volunteering (northamptonjesuscentre.wordpress.com)
- Kentucky’s Trappist monks get shout-out in Food Network magazine (ashleeeats.com)
- Gandhi & faith in action (pathikpathak.wordpress.com)
Duns Scotus (1266-1308) was a Scottish Franciscan theologian, likely born in Duns Berwickshire.
Scotus challenged St. Thomas Aquinas on the relation between faith and reason. Aquinas argued that if one first believed, knowledge of God would follow. That is, reason (a form of conceptual knowledge) followed and supported faith (a set of specific beliefs). Therefore for Aquinas faith and reason were closely related.
Scotus, on the other hand, divorced faith from reason, arguing the two were irreconcilable. His quick mind earned him the title of Doctor Subtilis (the subtle doctor). Along these lines, he advocated the theological idea of something halfway between a mere concept and a reality, an idea of interest to contemporary sociologists (especially non-reductive postmoderns) and philosophers.
Like other realist philosophers of the period (such as Aquinas and Henry of Ghent) Scotus recognised the need for an intermediate distinction that was not merely conceptual, but not fully real or mind-dependent either. Scotus argued for an formal distinction (distinctio formalis a parte rei), which holds between entities which are inseparable and indistinct in reality, but whose definitions are not identical. For example, the personal properties of the Trinity are formally distinct from the Divine essence. Similarly, the distinction between the ‘thisness’ or haecceity of a thing is intermediate between a real and a conceptual distinction. There is also a formal distinction between the divine attributes and the powers of the soul.†
Scotus’ defense of the Papacy was ridiculed by Protestant reformers in the 16th century, contributing to the pun “dunce.”
- Blessed Duns Scotus: Defender of the Immaculate Conception (insightscoop.typepad.com)
- Blessed Duns Scotus, faithful disciple of Saint Francis (insightscoop.typepad.com)
- Lourdes exhibit celebrates Bible (toledoblade.com)
St. Anselm (of Canterbury, 1033-1109) was the somewhat undisciplined son of a noble landowner in Aosta, Italy. He eventually took monastic vows and rose among the ranks to become the archbishop of Canterbury.
St. Anselm is one of the earliest and most important scholastics of the Middle Ages. He’s best known for defining the ontological argument, a theological proof for the existence of God that is still taught in philosophy and theology courses today.
Like most theological proofs, the ontological argument seems self-evident to many believers but usually fails to convince skeptics. In the Proslogion Anselm writes that God is “something than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
So what does this mean? Let’s try to unpack it.
To be the very greatest thing imaginable, that thing must also exist in reality and not just in the mind. Therefore, so the argument goes, the greatest thing – God – is not just a concept, fantasy or hallucination. Instead, God is the greatest conceivable being which exists by necessity.
This argument was rejected on purely rational grounds by St. Thomas Aquinas who nevertheless believed in God. Aquinas believed in God. He just thought that Anselm’s argument was no good.
René Descartes used a strategy similar to Anselm’s when rescuing himself from difficulties that arose from his famous ontological argument. You’ve heard this argument, no doubt. It’s the old, “I think, therefore I am.”¹ Descartes knew that he, himself, existed, but he still wasn’t sure about the outside world. He could have lapsed into solipsism had he not further reasoned that God must be fundamentally good, so would not deceive him by presenting the mere illusion of an outer world. Instead, God created a real, outer world that is perceived by the senses—again, because God is fundamentally good and wouldn’t deceive his creatures.
But to return to St. Anselm, his view of faith and understanding is noteworthy and, one could say, reverses much of the worldly wisdom we’re continually bombarded with today. Instead of believing in something because it is comprehensible in the first place, Anselm takes another approach. He forwards these two important phrases:
- fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding)
- credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I can understand).
The second statement is based on St. Augustine’s teaching that one should believe in order to understand (crede, ut intelligas).
Taken together, these statements suggest that one must take a ‘leap of faith’ to better understand spiritual truths. For many this is an illogical or non-intellectual approach but it could be seen as logical in two related ways:
First of all, when we recognize the limits of worldly reason in understanding spiritual dynamics it arguably makes sense to, at least momentarily, cede logic to faith. This approach could possibly increase our knowledge—and we would never know otherwise unless we actually tried it.
Second, when one embraces a faith position, the inherent and greater logic of God’s ways – if actual and true – should become increasingly apparent to reason as time goes by (see, for example, Isaiah 55:6-9).
However, if the hypothesized greater logic of God’s ways does not make itself apparent after adopting a faith position, we then, after a reasonable amount of time, would have a logical, perhaps scientific, reason to reject the idea that greater intellectual understanding follows faith.
But, again, we would never know for sure and arguably would not be fully scientific unless we first tried this approach.²
¹ The British rock group The Moody Blues put an interesting twist on this argument in their 1969 lp, On the Threshold of a Dream. A voice-over at the beginning of the song “In the Beginning” says:
I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think… [last two words are slightly quizzical]
² The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung was the son of a Protestant clergyman who stressed that Carl should believe and not think. To his father’s dismay Jung replied, “Give me this belief” (C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, revised, ed. Aniela Jaffé, trans. Richard and Clara Winston, New York: Vintage Books, 1961, p. 43). And this spells out the difference in emphasis between the gnostic who believes they know vs. the believer who strives to know or, perhaps, know more.
- Teach My Heart – A Prayer of St Anselm (inconversion.wordpress.com)
- St. Anselm’s Prayer (jbuworshiparts.wordpress.com)
- Anselmiana (thesearewaters.wordpress.com)
- Why Descartes’ “Proof” of the Existence of God is Fallacious (existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com)
- I Believe in God (thoughtsofacatholicscientist.wordpress.com)
- Researchers claim to have proven that God exists (dnaindia.com)
- Two Germans with a MacBook prove that God exists (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
- Faith as the Possibility of Reason in Anselm’s Monologion (tyndalelibrary.wordpress.com)
Buddhism is a world religion founded by Siddhartha Gotama (c. 563-483 BCE), who later became the Buddha. Some claim it is not a religion but a way or path, as if to suggest that Buddhism doesn’t involve belief and human opinion but sheer truth. However, when challenged with this claim, believers often fall back on traditional ways of looking at and talking about ultimate reality, which seems to point to a belief system based on or, at least, strongly influenced by human concepts and theories.
Indeed, Buddhism takes several different forms, usually called schools or branches. Most forms of Buddhism agree that attaining enlightenment involves becoming aware of and discarding flawed beliefs about
- having and individual self
- the existence of God
This, alone, should put to rest any claims by well-meaning but misinformed people who maintain that “all religions are the same.” To say that we do not really exist as individuals and, moreover, that God does not exist is misguided from the perspective of several world religions.
Like most other religions, Buddhism split off into many branches. Offshoots in China, Korea, Japan and the West have built up a complex system of deities, masters, Lamas, rules and procedures, many of which are reverentially given legitimacy and even supremacy over other schools.
In one branch of Hinduism, the Buddha is regarded as an incarnation of a master demon, sent to deceive the masses. This is probably because the Buddha story threatened the established Hindu social and religious order. But most traditional Hindus regard the Buddha as the 9th avatar who incarnates just after Krishna and before Kalki, the one who is yet to come.
Buddhist scriptures were written 300-600 years after the death of Buddha.† Assuming the scriptures reflect his actual words, Buddha pessimistically said this worldly life is like a “burning bush.” This apparently lead him to proclaim the Four Noble Truths about human suffering and the Eightfold Path, which apparently are his instructions on how to escape suffering.
Around 200 CE Buddhism split into two main factions: The Mahayana and the Hinayana. The Mahayana school spread into China and Japan, each culture putting its own, unique stamp on the original teachings.
Scholarly, academic, popular and non-devotional versions of Buddhism seem to appeal to logically-minded intellectuals, even though the attainment of nirvana is beyond both logic and form. Nirvana is, according to early scriptures, “Joy.” The following parable illustrates two main Buddhist ideals, those of the arhat and bodhisattva: The arhat uses a walking stick to climb up a mountain. But on reaching the top, the stick is no longer needed. At this point, the arhat throws the stick away and enjoys the wonderful view—that is, the arhat enters nirvana. The bodhisattva, however, picks up the stick and goes back down the mountain to help others to climb up for the first time.
The arhat ideal belongs to Hinayana Buddhism (“small vehicle”). The bodhisattva ideal relates to Mahayana Buddhism (“great vehicle”). While the arhat enjoys enlightenment and abandons all worldly techniques used to attain it, the bodhisattva delays entry to nirvana, retains his worldly techniques and returns to society to lead others to a supposedly higher level of ego-less awareness.
Plato advocates a structurally similar approach to the bodhisattva ideal in the cave analogy of the Republic. For Plato the beholder of the eternal Forms must return to the “cave” (i.e. the mundane world) to guide others to the truth, which for Plato is Beauty.
Buddha’s ethical message about interpersonal relations is similar to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. But Buddha’s teaching differs in that Christ tells us to love one another and to love God. And for Christ to love God is the single most important commandment of all time. Buddha does tell us to love each another, but he he also claims that ultimately you, the other and God do not exist. The only true reality is nirvana, a kind of interdependent whole with no absolute Creator. That is, no God.
Some say this is no different from the Catholic ideal of mystical union with God. Others believe it differs because the Catholic mystical saint beholds and basks in the glory of God but never claims to attain equal status or permanent identity (on non-identity) with God. And down here on Earth, to the Christian who inwardly and outwardly perceives the Holy Spirit guiding him or her through life, to be spiritual is to believe – and have reason to believe – in God.
Another difference between Buddhism and Christianity, in general, is found in the Buddhist idea that heavens and hells are mere stepping stones on a path of many reincarnations leading toward Nirvana. For Christians, heaven and hell are respectively blissful or horrendous eternal endpoints reached after a single lifetime. Catholic Christians do believe in purgatory but in Christian Fundamentalist approaches to the Bible, at death one either goes to eternal heaven or hell.
Viewed in this light, the Catholic belief in purgatory is arguably a very loose parallel to the Buddhist notion of reincarnation. This is because Catholics believe that the impure soul in purgatory receives another chance to enter into heaven. But again, Buddhists see their many heavens as mere stops along the way to Nirvana instead of the soul’s final destination. And Christians, for the most part, do not believe that the soul re-enters a physical body on earth to learn (or unlearn) more.
† Christianity is often criticized for being based on scriptures written 45 to possibly 140 years after the death of Jesus. But for some odd reason few of these critics seem equally concerned that Buddhist scriptures were not written until some 300-600 years after the death of Gotama.
- Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana (minervah.wordpress.com)
- Author Response to Commenters on Buddhism and Violence Article (religiondispatches.org)
- Buddha, by Ajahn Sumedho (buddhismnow.com)
- how many years buddhism was excisting ? and about buddhism (charithpro.wordpress.com)
- Buddha (earthpages.wordpress.com)
- A Basis for Zen Fundamentalism? (buddhistpaganmagick.wordpress.com)
- Decline Of Buddhism In Ancient And Medieval India – Analysis (eurasiareview.com)
- The Four Sacred Mountains in Chinese Buddhism (cntravel2013.wordpress.com)
Bahai is a relatively recent world religion. Adherents of Bahai claim that God is progressively revealed through a sequence of teachers, including Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, and its Persian founder, Baha’u'llah (1860′s).
The religion is monotheistic, emphasizing monogamous family life, obedience to government authority, personal honesty and cleanliness. Bahai schools and media programs are flourishing.
Baha’u'llah originally went by the name Mirza Hoseyn, a Shi’ite Muslim. Hoseyn aligned himself with the Bab, head of the Babis, a Muslim sect claiming to have privileged knowledge about ultimate truth. The Bab was executed for treason by the Iranian government and Hoseyn was then exiled by orthodox Sunni Muslims.
Hoseyn went to Constantinople (Istanbul). There, in 1867, he declared himself to be the Imam Madhi (“rightly guided leader”), as foretold by the Bab.
Violence ensued and he was banished to Acre, where he developed the contemporary doctrine of Ba’hai: Universal brotherhood and the unity of all religions. Pilgrims from Iran and the USA journeyed to Acre to learn about his teachings.
- Ever Read a Book That Made You Re-think? (pukirahe.wordpress.com)
- Hanging Out With Buddha or Jesus? (pukirahe.wordpress.com)
- What Book Should I Read? (pukirahe.wordpress.com)
- OSU’s Bahá’í Campus Association (osu.uloop.com)
- First Thing You Do on Waking Up? (joyfulwayfarer.wordpress.com)
- Viewpoint: Baha’i Peace Park continues to grow in Muskegon as a place of meditation for all (mlive.com)
- Bahá’í student expelled from Iranian university ‘on grounds of religion’ (guardian.co.uk)
- Cruelty: Intolerance victims (wvgazette.com)
- Nava Na’imi, a Baha’i citizen from Esfahan arrested (zendanianesiasi.wordpress.com)
- Baha’i faithful in area hope Iranian persecution ends (vcstar.com)
The word “church” has different meanings. Architecturally it refers to a building used for public religious worship.
Church also refers to an entire body of religious believers and usually the hierarchically ordained clergy who guide and instruct that body of worshippers.
Wikipedia tells us:
The above meanings may or may not apply to Christian belief. In today’s world, “church” also applies to Buddhism and, in fact, to any government-recognized religious body of believers and their creed.
These assemblies are usually tax exempt so stringent criteria must be met before a public assembly is designated as a church. And follow-up procedures are sometimes necessary to guard against the public being scammed by fraudsters setting up a “church” for the sole purpose of tax evasion.
Most Christian and Buddhist churches have undergone serious divisions, each splinter group claiming they’ve uniquely preserved and, perhaps, elaborated on the true source of their faith.
From the perspective of conventional reasoning all of the truth claims arising from the different churches (and their many divisions) cannot be correct. But also from conventional reasoning it doesn’t follow that all of these claims are necessarily incorrect.
It’s conceivable (if improbable) that one church teaches absolute, perfect truth while others contain no or, perhaps, partial truths. It’s also conceivable that one church is truest (but not absolutely true) while others remain somewhat less true.
Other perspectives suggest that all churches and the truths they proclaim are equally valid and true. This is the “anything goes” perspective we sometimes find among New Age enthusiasts. Interestingly, this perspective is allegedly supported by interior visions and other extraordinary experiences. Most mainstream currents of belief also tend to claim some kind of supernatural authority. However, these various ‘authorities’ usually say something entirely unique. It’s a fallacy to say that all religions teach the same thing. They do not—not when each religion is taken on its own terms, at any rate.
Alternately, some maintain that all churches and the truths they proclaim are bogus.
- Dighton churches to open their doors for holiday tour (tauntongazette.com)
- Will we have church tomorrow? (riverrockchurch.com)
- The Religious Spirit and the Out-of-Church Movement (leavethechurch.me)
- Christianity (earthpages.wordpress.com)
- Erie County churches look beyond collection baskets (goerie.com)
- You: Christians exploring new ways to spread the word (japantimes.co.jp)
- Why Should I Join A Local Church? (larryfarlow.com)
- Where nature worshippers gather (heraldnet.com)
- When a Church Partners with a Public School to Raise Money for a Christian Charity, an Atheist Steps In (patheos.com)
- YOU are the Church! (worthabowedhead.wordpress.com)
The Donatists were a 4th century schismatic group in the North African Church, named after their leader, Donatus. They disputed conventional theologians like St. Augustine and also the authenticity of a certain bishop (Caecillian) whom they said had been consecrated by a traitor to the faith (The traitor apparently had handed over the Bible to Roman persecutors).
The Donatists resorted to violence in their bid to wrest Africa from Roman rule. And they survived until the Arab takeover of North Africa in the 7th and 8th centuries.¹
Theologically, the Donatists believed that a corrupt priest could not effectively administer the sacraments. So apart from their political importance, they raised a theological question which many still wrestle with today:
Can a corrupt priest effectively administer the sacraments?
Not too many contemporary critics of Catholicism are aware that the Church quickly dealt with this question—albeit, in its own way. Basically, the Church forwarded an argument that is now known as ex opere operato (Latin: by the action performed). Among believers, ex opere operato indicates that a sacrament is always effective when administered by a consecrated priest, regardless of the moral condition of his soul at the time.
Some may object by saying that dressing up a theological idea in fancy sounding Latin doesn’t necessarily make it a true idea. On the other hand, if one believes that we’re all born with the taint of original sin and remain imperfect throughout our lives, the ex opere operato argument seems not only reasonable but necessary. That is, if a priest had to be morally spotless to effectively administer the sacraments, would it ever happen?
¹ S. G. F. Brandon (ed.) Dictionary of Comparative Religion, 1971, p. 245.
- Beggars All: Ex Opere Operato baptismal regeneration is not Biblical! (godsphilosoraptor.wordpress.com)
- “The Limits of the Church” by Fr. Georges Florovsky (orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org)
- Nimrod Lives! (kairosinfinite.com)
- “I think I understand how the typical Protestant feels… (insightscoop.typepad.com)
- From the Depths of Despair to Sublime Subsistence (servusfidelis.wordpress.com)
- A Chat with St Augustine (junjunfaithbook.com)
- What should Protestants think about the Catholic sacrament of penance (confession)? (gratefultothedead.wordpress.com)
- New Model For Sacramental Preparation (catechesisinthethirdmillennium.wordpress.com)
- Life in a Sacramental World (fatherstephen.wordpress.com)
- Incarnation and Sacrament (apologus.wordpress.com)